“Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.”
After reading both Part I of 1984 and the “Thin Gruel” articles, I must say that I do see a connection between the Newspeak of 1984 and the actual censorship that has and still is taking place in our literature and language. The main principle of Newspeak is that if all the words that describe controversial topics are removed, then so are the controversial topics themselves, since no one has the words to describe them anymore. With today’s world of censorship, controversial topics are removed, and in a sense, also disappear from the minds of the children. If certain controversial topics are dropped from textbooks, and the students don’t learn them, then perhaps they will never learn them.
The article, on page 6, defines censorship as “the deliberate removal of language, ideas, and books from the classroom or library because they are deemed offensive or controversial.” In fact, certain textbook publishers, such as Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, deliberately censored their own material in order to try to please angry parents before they had a chance to complain. In 1984, Big Brother eliminated certain words (most of them, actually) to eliminate the chance of a revolt, and in a sense, created stability. This was also what the textbook publishers were trying to achieve—stability. However, even after many, many rounds of censors and re-writes, people were still upset and unsatisfied. You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. The publishers learned this the hard way, and had many textbook sets fail because they appeared too feminist, sexist, racist, or contained vulgar or inappropriate material.
Both 1984 and “Thin Gruel” deal with censorship enacted to create stability and peace. While 1984’s was more successful (at the beginning), both have weaknesses that deal with the inability to please everyone, everytime.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Blog #25: “1984: Blog 1”
The concept of “Newspeak” is present in George Orwell’s 1984. Defined as the official language of Oceania, it has eliminated the majority of controversial words and topics. The main goal behind it is that if the people can’t say it, then they can’t think it. In this way, The Party controls what everyone does and thinks, by what they can say.
The expressions of thought throughout Part One of 1984 are altered as a result of newspeak. Because this is the official language of the area, everyone has to use it to communicate with each other. All words referencing freedom and democracy have been removed to eliminate the chance of a revolt. The people all behave like robots—each assigned to certain jobs and forced to do them and live the same life everyone else lives. Everything is uniform, and through ignorance, strength and stability are achieved.
With newspeak, The Party, which is the government that controls everything and everyone, is able to force the people into doing and speaking without actually thinking. With the shortened and abbreviated words, there is no time for people to think about what they are actually saying, and as a result, enter into a state where they are unable to contemplate the real meanings behind the words and sentences they speak.
Certain leaders of our world today have used this same type of concept—limiting what the people are allowed to know and essentially think. A prime example is in North Korea. Dictator Kim Jong-Il has restricted the media flow into and out of the country. The country has one of the most tightly controlled media systems in the world. This has impacted certainly the citizens of North Korea, as well as everyone throughout the world. No one really knows what the real North Korea is like, and the majority of the population of North Korea have no idea what the rest of the world is like.
Another example of the concept of newspeak in our world today is a little closer to home. The internet and text messaging “lingo” that has exploded in the past couple years has pushed closer and closer to Orwell’s newspeak. Expressions such as “laughing out loud” and “by the way” can be simplified into LOL and BTW. Along with that, is the immense number of abbreviations and acronyms that exist in our world. From watching television and seeing “CSI,” “NCIS,” and “Law and Order: SVU” to attending a high-school class and seeing “SAT,” “ACT,” and “APUSH,” acronyms and abbreviations are just one step away from newspeak. The problem is that when an acronym is used, like newspeak, the original meaning is lost. Soon people start to think only of a useless sting of letters instead of the words behind the letters that stand for what the thing actually is. Whatever the case, newspeak is present in today’s world, as well as the world George Orwell imagined when he wrote 1984.
The expressions of thought throughout Part One of 1984 are altered as a result of newspeak. Because this is the official language of the area, everyone has to use it to communicate with each other. All words referencing freedom and democracy have been removed to eliminate the chance of a revolt. The people all behave like robots—each assigned to certain jobs and forced to do them and live the same life everyone else lives. Everything is uniform, and through ignorance, strength and stability are achieved.
With newspeak, The Party, which is the government that controls everything and everyone, is able to force the people into doing and speaking without actually thinking. With the shortened and abbreviated words, there is no time for people to think about what they are actually saying, and as a result, enter into a state where they are unable to contemplate the real meanings behind the words and sentences they speak.
Certain leaders of our world today have used this same type of concept—limiting what the people are allowed to know and essentially think. A prime example is in North Korea. Dictator Kim Jong-Il has restricted the media flow into and out of the country. The country has one of the most tightly controlled media systems in the world. This has impacted certainly the citizens of North Korea, as well as everyone throughout the world. No one really knows what the real North Korea is like, and the majority of the population of North Korea have no idea what the rest of the world is like.
Another example of the concept of newspeak in our world today is a little closer to home. The internet and text messaging “lingo” that has exploded in the past couple years has pushed closer and closer to Orwell’s newspeak. Expressions such as “laughing out loud” and “by the way” can be simplified into LOL and BTW. Along with that, is the immense number of abbreviations and acronyms that exist in our world. From watching television and seeing “CSI,” “NCIS,” and “Law and Order: SVU” to attending a high-school class and seeing “SAT,” “ACT,” and “APUSH,” acronyms and abbreviations are just one step away from newspeak. The problem is that when an acronym is used, like newspeak, the original meaning is lost. Soon people start to think only of a useless sting of letters instead of the words behind the letters that stand for what the thing actually is. Whatever the case, newspeak is present in today’s world, as well as the world George Orwell imagined when he wrote 1984.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Blog #23: “Brave New World and Karl Marx”
Question #1: “Why did Karl Marx think class conflict was inevitable in a capitalist society?”
Karl Marx believed in the idea of communism, which is basically the abolishment of private property. He believed that in a capitalist society or one of “free trade,” that capitalists work to protect capitalism, while workers work to destroy it. This is in essence, the foundation for the inevitable class conflict that Marx described. What he means, is that the business owners and CEOs of large companies (in today’s world) are only concerned with making a profit, and will do whatever is necessary to ensure that they do, indeed, profit. While at the same exact time, the workers that make it possible for the CEOs to make large profits want as much compensation for their work as possible. They try to destroy the system that pays large business professionals in order to increase their own personal wealth. This battle over money and power is the root of all class conflict, and has been throughout history.
Question #2: “Do you agree or disagree with Marx?”
Being the American citizen that I am, I have to say that I disagree with Marx because I believe in the free-enterprise system that we currently have in place. Sure, it is flawed, but so is every other kind of system in our world. I also believe in the freedoms that communism takes away. The concept of private property is at the foundation of what our country stands for, and I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to be the best that they can be, and therefore make the amount of money that they so desire. With a free enterprise system, it may not be easy to make a reasonable fortune, but at least it is not impossible.
Question #3: “How does his theory on class conflict connect to the World State’s view of class in Brave New World? What similarities do you see between the two?”
Marx’s system is designed to eliminate all class conflict by taking away the initial cause that stems from selfishness. However, in Brave New World, the elimination of class conflict is also evident. In the book, new babies are assigned to classes and taught to like nothing but whatever class they happen to end up in. The people have no say in what happens, which is a lot like communism and Marx’s theory relating to class conflict. Without any choice, people have nothing to argue over and in essence, conflict is avoided.
Karl Marx believed in the idea of communism, which is basically the abolishment of private property. He believed that in a capitalist society or one of “free trade,” that capitalists work to protect capitalism, while workers work to destroy it. This is in essence, the foundation for the inevitable class conflict that Marx described. What he means, is that the business owners and CEOs of large companies (in today’s world) are only concerned with making a profit, and will do whatever is necessary to ensure that they do, indeed, profit. While at the same exact time, the workers that make it possible for the CEOs to make large profits want as much compensation for their work as possible. They try to destroy the system that pays large business professionals in order to increase their own personal wealth. This battle over money and power is the root of all class conflict, and has been throughout history.
Question #2: “Do you agree or disagree with Marx?”
Being the American citizen that I am, I have to say that I disagree with Marx because I believe in the free-enterprise system that we currently have in place. Sure, it is flawed, but so is every other kind of system in our world. I also believe in the freedoms that communism takes away. The concept of private property is at the foundation of what our country stands for, and I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to be the best that they can be, and therefore make the amount of money that they so desire. With a free enterprise system, it may not be easy to make a reasonable fortune, but at least it is not impossible.
Question #3: “How does his theory on class conflict connect to the World State’s view of class in Brave New World? What similarities do you see between the two?”
Marx’s system is designed to eliminate all class conflict by taking away the initial cause that stems from selfishness. However, in Brave New World, the elimination of class conflict is also evident. In the book, new babies are assigned to classes and taught to like nothing but whatever class they happen to end up in. The people have no say in what happens, which is a lot like communism and Marx’s theory relating to class conflict. Without any choice, people have nothing to argue over and in essence, conflict is avoided.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Blog #22: “Brave New World and the Happiness of World State Members”
It is true that most World State Members are happy. They are engineered from birth, told what and when to think, and given drugs to constantly be high and happy. This is a prime example of brainwashing, yet for the “benefit” of the people. Most seem content with the way things are, yet a few do not. These people, such as Bernard, John, and Helmholtz, see that their lives are not really worth living because they are not “their” lives.” Bernard found it difficult to understand how Lenina could just accept things the way they were, without thinking and without wanting to challenge and question “why?” Bernard could see past the brainwashing, and is on his way to discovering who he really is.
It is one thing to be “happy,” but another to be satisfied at the quality of your life. All three (Bernard, John, and Helmholtz) are certainly not content with the quality of their lives, even though they live in a theoretically “perfect” world, where all decisions are made for you. Part of this is the fact that people don’t want to know the truth. They would rather simply be lazy and happy all the time, than use their brains for good use. They accept what the cards are that they are given and don’t think twice about them. Most people are like this, except for the select few mentioned above. They are certainly “pioneers” of this time, but are seen as odd and weird in their communities. Bernard is even moved to Iceland, because he appears different than everyone else.
Soma is the same kind of drug as ecstasy is in the real world. Both are viewed as relatively harmless (when compared to much worse drugs, such as crack or heroin—nonetheless, ecstasy is still very dangerous), and create almost instant happiness for the user. This is a way to escape the difficulties of real life, but certainly has risks. People, both in the book and in our world today, become too dependent on the drugs to make them happy. Soon they don’t care about reality anymore, and only care about the high they receive as a result of the drugs. Whatever the case, drugs are never the answer, and the truth cannot be avoided forever.
It is one thing to be “happy,” but another to be satisfied at the quality of your life. All three (Bernard, John, and Helmholtz) are certainly not content with the quality of their lives, even though they live in a theoretically “perfect” world, where all decisions are made for you. Part of this is the fact that people don’t want to know the truth. They would rather simply be lazy and happy all the time, than use their brains for good use. They accept what the cards are that they are given and don’t think twice about them. Most people are like this, except for the select few mentioned above. They are certainly “pioneers” of this time, but are seen as odd and weird in their communities. Bernard is even moved to Iceland, because he appears different than everyone else.
Soma is the same kind of drug as ecstasy is in the real world. Both are viewed as relatively harmless (when compared to much worse drugs, such as crack or heroin—nonetheless, ecstasy is still very dangerous), and create almost instant happiness for the user. This is a way to escape the difficulties of real life, but certainly has risks. People, both in the book and in our world today, become too dependent on the drugs to make them happy. Soon they don’t care about reality anymore, and only care about the high they receive as a result of the drugs. Whatever the case, drugs are never the answer, and the truth cannot be avoided forever.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Blog #21: “Healthcare in the United States”
After viewing Michael Moore’s “Sicko” documentary, I immediately wanted what he recommended—Universal Healthcare for everyone in the United States. By comparing the US to countries such as the UK, Canada, France, and even Cuba—all of which had “better” systems in place then us, he initially won me over. But as all of Michael Moore’s documentaries are, they only present one side of the situation. After viewing the supplementary documentary, “Dead Meat,” and reading the Slate article, “Michael Moore and the Beige Bomber,” it is clear to see that this situation is one of immense complications.
While Moore presented the positives to Universal Healthcare, such as everyone receiving coverage and free to very low priced prescriptions, he failed to mention the disadvantages that the Beige Bomber article is quick to point out. This article mentions that “giving free health care to everyone costs a lot of money.” Perhaps most relevant in today’s terms, money is at an endangered state and spending that kind of it would be impossible to overcome.
As with most industries in this country, the healthcare industry is way over complicated. As the “Beige Bomber” article mentions, “[To implement a national health care system], you would need to do more than just overcome the insurance industry. You would need to cut the salaries of doctors, reform the legal system, enrage our allies by causing their prescription drug cost to escalate, and accustom patients to a central decision-maker authorized to determine what procedures they are and are not allowed to get.” All of this seems preposterous, but in today’s world, very true. I’m sorry to say that I wish it wasn’t this complicated, but it is. To fix the problem, it’s going to take more than overhauling just one related industry such as the healthcare industry. While it would be a good first step, the amount of work that would lay ahead would be enough to frighten even the toughest fighters. It is certainly a corrupt system—wealthy HMO CEOs making money off of the people most in need and forcing them to sell their homes, cars, and dignities to save their loved ones’ lives. I’m not saying that other countries are perfect either, however we have a long way to go before I’ll be satisfied with ours.
To recommend a system for the United States that would a) work, b) not cost a tremendous amount of money, c) provide care to everyone in need of it, and d) make everyone happy seems like the impossible task. In fact, it is. It is impossible to please everyone and implement a system that would benefit everyone and make them 100% happy with what they are receiving. While total approval might seem like a fairy tale, major steps must be taken to ensure that we are moving in the right direction. First, as the “Beige Bomber” tells, “we should start fixing the most glaring problems of our system without junking it and starting over.” While starting over might seem like a better solution, in the end it would provide a bigger headache and an emptier national savings account. “We could use pooling to move away from the dump-and-deny insurance we have now. We could reward doctors for doing a good job. We could focus more on preventing sickness.” All of these tips make sense to me, and wouldn’t cost a large amount of money. They seem like a solid step in the right direction.
After taking in all the information, I can say that I agree with Michael Moore when he says that the American healthcare system needs to be changed. I, however differ with him when he proposes that the entire system be thrown away and a clean slate used to start again. As the “Beige Bomber” and “Dead Meat” sources say, fixing what we already have is the best way to move foreword. I think major changes need to take place in the next couple of years. Listening to President Obama, I believe that he has the capacity to take this issue on and change it so it fulfills the needs of all Americans. Hopefully, someday soon, the American healthcare industry will be one that other countries look upon with jealously, instead of the other way around.
While Moore presented the positives to Universal Healthcare, such as everyone receiving coverage and free to very low priced prescriptions, he failed to mention the disadvantages that the Beige Bomber article is quick to point out. This article mentions that “giving free health care to everyone costs a lot of money.” Perhaps most relevant in today’s terms, money is at an endangered state and spending that kind of it would be impossible to overcome.
As with most industries in this country, the healthcare industry is way over complicated. As the “Beige Bomber” article mentions, “[To implement a national health care system], you would need to do more than just overcome the insurance industry. You would need to cut the salaries of doctors, reform the legal system, enrage our allies by causing their prescription drug cost to escalate, and accustom patients to a central decision-maker authorized to determine what procedures they are and are not allowed to get.” All of this seems preposterous, but in today’s world, very true. I’m sorry to say that I wish it wasn’t this complicated, but it is. To fix the problem, it’s going to take more than overhauling just one related industry such as the healthcare industry. While it would be a good first step, the amount of work that would lay ahead would be enough to frighten even the toughest fighters. It is certainly a corrupt system—wealthy HMO CEOs making money off of the people most in need and forcing them to sell their homes, cars, and dignities to save their loved ones’ lives. I’m not saying that other countries are perfect either, however we have a long way to go before I’ll be satisfied with ours.
To recommend a system for the United States that would a) work, b) not cost a tremendous amount of money, c) provide care to everyone in need of it, and d) make everyone happy seems like the impossible task. In fact, it is. It is impossible to please everyone and implement a system that would benefit everyone and make them 100% happy with what they are receiving. While total approval might seem like a fairy tale, major steps must be taken to ensure that we are moving in the right direction. First, as the “Beige Bomber” tells, “we should start fixing the most glaring problems of our system without junking it and starting over.” While starting over might seem like a better solution, in the end it would provide a bigger headache and an emptier national savings account. “We could use pooling to move away from the dump-and-deny insurance we have now. We could reward doctors for doing a good job. We could focus more on preventing sickness.” All of these tips make sense to me, and wouldn’t cost a large amount of money. They seem like a solid step in the right direction.
After taking in all the information, I can say that I agree with Michael Moore when he says that the American healthcare system needs to be changed. I, however differ with him when he proposes that the entire system be thrown away and a clean slate used to start again. As the “Beige Bomber” and “Dead Meat” sources say, fixing what we already have is the best way to move foreword. I think major changes need to take place in the next couple of years. Listening to President Obama, I believe that he has the capacity to take this issue on and change it so it fulfills the needs of all Americans. Hopefully, someday soon, the American healthcare industry will be one that other countries look upon with jealously, instead of the other way around.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Blog #20: “Machiavellian Advisor to the New President of the United States of America”
With the recent election, there has been much talk about change. With Barack Obama as our new president, many things are going to be changed, hopefully for the better. After reading Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, if I were to imagine myself as an advisor to President Obama about the concepts and tactics entailed in the book, I would choose three teachings that I felt he should either employ or continue to use for the betterment of the United States of America and all of its citizens.
The first lesson is from Chapter VI (6) and deals with how princes form new princedoms. The United States has been around for well over 200 years, so I don’t think we have to worry about being seized by another “prince,” however, I believe this can apply in our efforts to end our recession and bounce back into prosperity. The specific part was that princes should follow in the footsteps of others, especially great leaders, in order to be successful on their own part. I see this happening already, in the fact the President Obama has researched President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Programs, and implemented a few of his own, with more sure to come. The two newest, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), show that using FDR’s type of programs have worked in the past, and will continue to work today. I chose this lesson because I feel it is important to be successful, and especially in these hard times, to be successful in the smallest amount of time to avoid other complications. By using something that worked in the past, will eliminate much time that would otherwise be spent developing some type of program to meet this need.
The second lesson is from Chapter VII (7) and addresses those princes who use their power and money to buy their way into positions of power. Princes of merit are far better leaders, and in the end, ultimately achieve a better overall satisfaction rating from the people. This is important when selecting cabinet members and appointing other public officials, because if they are selected because of their wealth, nothing good can come of it. Corruption is something that haunts American politics, and is something that needs to stop. By eliminating this form of leaders, eliminates a major source of the problem. I selected this lesson because I feel that the leaders we elect should serve the American people, not themselves. They are in a public office, and as a result, must act accordingly.
The final lesson is from Chapter X (10) and deals with when princedoms are attacked and/or seized. It goes on to say that if a princedom is attacked, it is best if the prince is prepared ahead of time to react to the attack. I believe that in our world today, war is inevitable, and we must ensure that we have the ability to protect ourselves and our allies. Currently the military of the United States is the largest in the world, by a wide margin. I believe this needs to continue, and I would urge the President to ensure that this happens. It is unnerving to think like this, but one must expect the worst, and in today’s world, that is pretty bad. Our military needs to ensure that no harm comes to the American people and our allies around the world.
While Machiavelli’s teachings and lessons are certainly controversial in democracies around the world, there are certain aspects that take hold in our form of government. The three lessons above reflect, in my opinion, those that we need to be concerned about most in today’s world.
The first lesson is from Chapter VI (6) and deals with how princes form new princedoms. The United States has been around for well over 200 years, so I don’t think we have to worry about being seized by another “prince,” however, I believe this can apply in our efforts to end our recession and bounce back into prosperity. The specific part was that princes should follow in the footsteps of others, especially great leaders, in order to be successful on their own part. I see this happening already, in the fact the President Obama has researched President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Programs, and implemented a few of his own, with more sure to come. The two newest, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), show that using FDR’s type of programs have worked in the past, and will continue to work today. I chose this lesson because I feel it is important to be successful, and especially in these hard times, to be successful in the smallest amount of time to avoid other complications. By using something that worked in the past, will eliminate much time that would otherwise be spent developing some type of program to meet this need.
The second lesson is from Chapter VII (7) and addresses those princes who use their power and money to buy their way into positions of power. Princes of merit are far better leaders, and in the end, ultimately achieve a better overall satisfaction rating from the people. This is important when selecting cabinet members and appointing other public officials, because if they are selected because of their wealth, nothing good can come of it. Corruption is something that haunts American politics, and is something that needs to stop. By eliminating this form of leaders, eliminates a major source of the problem. I selected this lesson because I feel that the leaders we elect should serve the American people, not themselves. They are in a public office, and as a result, must act accordingly.
The final lesson is from Chapter X (10) and deals with when princedoms are attacked and/or seized. It goes on to say that if a princedom is attacked, it is best if the prince is prepared ahead of time to react to the attack. I believe that in our world today, war is inevitable, and we must ensure that we have the ability to protect ourselves and our allies. Currently the military of the United States is the largest in the world, by a wide margin. I believe this needs to continue, and I would urge the President to ensure that this happens. It is unnerving to think like this, but one must expect the worst, and in today’s world, that is pretty bad. Our military needs to ensure that no harm comes to the American people and our allies around the world.
While Machiavelli’s teachings and lessons are certainly controversial in democracies around the world, there are certain aspects that take hold in our form of government. The three lessons above reflect, in my opinion, those that we need to be concerned about most in today’s world.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Blog #19: “Should the United States Preemptively Attack Iranian Nuclear Facilities?”
After reading the Taking Sides packet, I have mixed feelings over this issue. First of all, I am convinced to choose the “yes” side, just out of sheer amazement of the length of the “no” side. After dissecting and picking out the relevant parts of both sides, I tend to favor the “no” side, for this major reason: the government of Iran and the people of Iran do not have the same views, intentions, or actions. While the government is extremist, violent, and an “American-hater,” the people are, for the most part, just the opposite. Edward N. Luttwak says on page 139 that, “Except for a narrow segment of extremists, they [Iranians] do not view themselves as enemies of the United States, but rather as an exact opposite...and they wish to restore the best of relations [between Iran and the United States.]” He also states that, “the inhabitants of Iran are human beings just like the rest of us” (138). I challenge anyone who says that it is acceptable to kill people like the citizens of Iran, who are simply innocent people who are stuck with a bad government. They have done NOTHING wrong, and as a result, should not be punished. The government needs to be kicked out, but the people deserve better. It is the job of other countries, such as the United States, to ensure this happens, without injury to the people. This is the most challenging task in our world today, and is something that will continue to be faced by our government, and other countries like us, for many years to come.
The argument is whether to bomb or not to bomb, but rather whether to do it preemptively, or with anticipation of an enemy attack. A comment made by Mario Loyola for the “yes” side reads, “It is reasonable to insist that if the Iranians want advanced nuclear technology, they need to get an advanced government first” (133). This again comes back to the issue of the government versus the people. The government needs to change, but the people can’t be punished in the process.
One of the things I agreed with while reading the “yes” side, was the constant opinion that the United Nations was ineffective at getting anything done about Iran and its nuclear threats. From our earlier articles, I remain firm in my opinion that the UN must change in order to survive as the International Community it was originally designed to be. From Mr. Loyola’s argument, the United States is trying to gain support from other UN members to go after these weapons in Iran, but has been shut down every time. If the US goes behind the UN’s back and investigates anyways, the US risks international disapproval, just because the UN already said no. I relate this to the common, “Ask mom, if she says no, ask dad” routine that many children resort to in order to get what they want. While often effective at first, it causes an eruption from both sides, and an eventual dismissal of the current and future courses of action. In this case, it seems as though the US is stuck.
Perhaps the most disturbing, is the fact that “Should Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons, it may create incentives for other countries in the region...to develop nuclear weapons as well. (145). This is particularly unnerving, as an entire region of extremist governments with nuclear weapons would be a huge threat to the wellbeing of everyone around the globe. However, “[Iran’s] effort to build nuclear weapons started more than three decades ago, yet the regime is still years away from producing a bomb” (139). This provides a little bit of relief, in the fact that they are progressing very slowly, which allows for a US response, if necessary, with enough time to react before an attack is targeted on us. “There is no reason to attack prematurely, because there will be ample time to do so before it is too late—that is, before enough fissile material has been produced for one bomb” (143). We must act, just not preemptively, and certainly not against the “American-supportive” people of Iran.
The argument is whether to bomb or not to bomb, but rather whether to do it preemptively, or with anticipation of an enemy attack. A comment made by Mario Loyola for the “yes” side reads, “It is reasonable to insist that if the Iranians want advanced nuclear technology, they need to get an advanced government first” (133). This again comes back to the issue of the government versus the people. The government needs to change, but the people can’t be punished in the process.
One of the things I agreed with while reading the “yes” side, was the constant opinion that the United Nations was ineffective at getting anything done about Iran and its nuclear threats. From our earlier articles, I remain firm in my opinion that the UN must change in order to survive as the International Community it was originally designed to be. From Mr. Loyola’s argument, the United States is trying to gain support from other UN members to go after these weapons in Iran, but has been shut down every time. If the US goes behind the UN’s back and investigates anyways, the US risks international disapproval, just because the UN already said no. I relate this to the common, “Ask mom, if she says no, ask dad” routine that many children resort to in order to get what they want. While often effective at first, it causes an eruption from both sides, and an eventual dismissal of the current and future courses of action. In this case, it seems as though the US is stuck.
Perhaps the most disturbing, is the fact that “Should Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons, it may create incentives for other countries in the region...to develop nuclear weapons as well. (145). This is particularly unnerving, as an entire region of extremist governments with nuclear weapons would be a huge threat to the wellbeing of everyone around the globe. However, “[Iran’s] effort to build nuclear weapons started more than three decades ago, yet the regime is still years away from producing a bomb” (139). This provides a little bit of relief, in the fact that they are progressing very slowly, which allows for a US response, if necessary, with enough time to react before an attack is targeted on us. “There is no reason to attack prematurely, because there will be ample time to do so before it is too late—that is, before enough fissile material has been produced for one bomb” (143). We must act, just not preemptively, and certainly not against the “American-supportive” people of Iran.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Blog #18: "The Prince Blog One"
Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince was written in 1513, but its descriptions and directions are still prevalent in our world today. Many people believe that Machiavelli was evil. They believe that his motives were for personal gain, power, and authority. After reading through the first nine chapters of The Prince, I do not agree with this. I believe that, in his time (1469-1527), he was simply trying to improve society, as he saw it unfit. The arguments for the evil side of the debate state that his theories are more aimed towards tyranny than democracy, but during his time period, many kings and queens ruled in this way. He was simply following society’s rules, yet at the same time, trying to improve them. Also, the concept of a king or queen in this time was one of absolute power. In today’s terms, we regard them as selfish and greedy, but back then, that was what they believed they were meant to do.
Even though I believe that Machiavelli did not have evil intentions for writing The Prince, there sill are some “evil-like” points he makes in the book. One of which is contained in chapter five, where Machiavelli describes “how cities or provinces which before their acquisition have lived under their own laws are to be governed.” Machiavelli writes that “When a newly acquired State has been accustomed, as I have said, to live under its own laws and in freedom, there are three methods whereby it may be held. The first is to destroy it; the second, to go and reside there in person; the third, to suffer it to live on under its own laws, subjecting it to a tribute, and entrusting its government to a few of the inhabitants who will keep the rest your friends” (Machiavelli 11). Machiavelli says that a method of holding a newly acquired state is to destroy it. I find this to be kind of evil, because it forces all prior cultures and traditions of the people to be thrown away. Again, this picture Machiavelli paints is not of democracy, but rather a dictatorship type of government.
While Machiavelli made many good points throughout these first nine chapters of The Prince, I found that I most believe with a point made in chapter six, where Machiavelli describes “of new princedoms which a Prince acquires with his own arms and by merit.” He writes that “For since men for the most part follow in the footsteps and imitate the actions of others, and yet are unable to adhere exactly to those paths which others have taken, or attain to the virtues of those whom they would resemble, the wise man should always follow the roads that have been trodden by the great, and imitate those who have most excelled, so that if he cannot reach their perfection, he may at least acquire something of its savour” (Machiavelli 12). I find this statement quite insightful. People we look up to should be accomplished in their respected areas, and by choosing the “best of the best,” insures that what you learn, is of the highest quality. What is the point of learning from someone who is unknowledgeable in the subject area you wish to learn? If you have the opportunity to learn from the best, it is to your advantage to do so.
Machiavelli’s beliefs are in practice today. The main purpose in the book is to show how Princes either gain or maintain control in a variety of situations. Today is no different, in regards to politics. Presidential campaigns, for example, pin one person against another in an effort to win the highest seat in our country. Through many methods, some more socially acceptable than others, politicians bash each other in hopes of convincing the people to elect themselves. Once elected, they must steer around many “sticky” situations to maintain their position. While the concepts of princedoms and democracies are certainly different, they do relate in the sense of politicians using many different ways to gain or maintain power.
Even though I believe that Machiavelli did not have evil intentions for writing The Prince, there sill are some “evil-like” points he makes in the book. One of which is contained in chapter five, where Machiavelli describes “how cities or provinces which before their acquisition have lived under their own laws are to be governed.” Machiavelli writes that “When a newly acquired State has been accustomed, as I have said, to live under its own laws and in freedom, there are three methods whereby it may be held. The first is to destroy it; the second, to go and reside there in person; the third, to suffer it to live on under its own laws, subjecting it to a tribute, and entrusting its government to a few of the inhabitants who will keep the rest your friends” (Machiavelli 11). Machiavelli says that a method of holding a newly acquired state is to destroy it. I find this to be kind of evil, because it forces all prior cultures and traditions of the people to be thrown away. Again, this picture Machiavelli paints is not of democracy, but rather a dictatorship type of government.
While Machiavelli made many good points throughout these first nine chapters of The Prince, I found that I most believe with a point made in chapter six, where Machiavelli describes “of new princedoms which a Prince acquires with his own arms and by merit.” He writes that “For since men for the most part follow in the footsteps and imitate the actions of others, and yet are unable to adhere exactly to those paths which others have taken, or attain to the virtues of those whom they would resemble, the wise man should always follow the roads that have been trodden by the great, and imitate those who have most excelled, so that if he cannot reach their perfection, he may at least acquire something of its savour” (Machiavelli 12). I find this statement quite insightful. People we look up to should be accomplished in their respected areas, and by choosing the “best of the best,” insures that what you learn, is of the highest quality. What is the point of learning from someone who is unknowledgeable in the subject area you wish to learn? If you have the opportunity to learn from the best, it is to your advantage to do so.
Machiavelli’s beliefs are in practice today. The main purpose in the book is to show how Princes either gain or maintain control in a variety of situations. Today is no different, in regards to politics. Presidential campaigns, for example, pin one person against another in an effort to win the highest seat in our country. Through many methods, some more socially acceptable than others, politicians bash each other in hopes of convincing the people to elect themselves. Once elected, they must steer around many “sticky” situations to maintain their position. While the concepts of princedoms and democracies are certainly different, they do relate in the sense of politicians using many different ways to gain or maintain power.
Extra Credit Blog: "Slumdog Millionaire's Relation to the Nature of Man"
This past weekend, I viewed the film, Slumdog Millionaire. As I watched, my eyes were glued to the screen. I was hooked and could not look away, the movie was that good. As I was watching, I couldn’t help but realize that the movie and its main themes related directly to our study of the nature of man. The film also shed light on reality in India, showing how a few people have great wealth, but the general population is extremely poor. While the few with money and power sit idly by, millions suffer from a lack of proper necessities of life. In that sense, the movie did an excellent job at educating the rest of the world the problems they face.The story is of a young boy’s journey from the slums of India to a better life. It is truly a “rags to riches” story, as he eventually wins one million dollars on the popular game show, “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” However, his journey to that point is the highlight of the film, and is directly related to the nature of man theme we’ve been studying this year.
When the movie first started off, the two boys, Jamal and Salim were very young. They were discovered by a man who exploited their singing abilities for his own gain. This evil man also blinded many young children with acid to improve their begging chance in the streets of Mumbai. It is true that he used the children for his own gain, but this evil was a result of his environment. The conditions around him, in the Indian environment, forced him to result to any means necessary to survive. And for this man, it was the immoral exploitation of young children. Jamal and Salim managed to escape, but unfortunately had to leave their new friend, Latika behind.
As time continued, the boys grew. They eventually returned to attempt to rescue Latika. This willingness to risk everything to save a loved one shows that even in the middle of someplace as corrupt as India is, the power of humanity still can strive. This rescue of Latika was one of the last moments that Jamal and Salim shared moral values. The two split up after Salim joined a gang and “stole” Latika away from Jamal. Jamal was crushed as a result of this, but never gave up hope for their reuniting someday. This shows again, that even in the midst of evil, good can still survive. The power of the human spirit is strong, and near impossible to destroy completely.
Jamal never gives up hope for Latika, and reunites with Salim some time later. The gang leader is wealthy, selfish, and cruel, which paints a perfect picture for the nature of humans being influenced by their surrounds. This man was able to become wealthy at the expense of many poor Indian people. Eventually, Salim realizes him mistakes, and reconnects with Jamal. Salim even helps Latika escape, and allows himself to die to ensure her escape.
The main story is that of the game show. One question away from a million, the game is stopped and scheduled to continue the next day. During the break, police arrest Jamal, and accuse him of cheating. They argue that a “Slumdog” couldn’t possibly know all the right answers, but Jamal persists in his defense of his success. Even after torture by hanging and electrocution, he will not give in to a false answer. This strength, even under intense pressure, is truly a mark of the power of the human spirit. I believe that this is innate, and all people possess this. For some, it is easily found, but for others, it is not. Regardless, Jamal persisted and as the police review the tape of the show, Jamal explains how he knew every answer.
In the end, he is allowed to continue, and correctly guesses the million dollar question’s answer. Latika, his “phone-a-friend” lifeline doesn’t know the answer, but Jamal is thrilled to communicate with her. They meet up after Jamal’s winning, and everyone breaks into song and dance, as all great films conclude.
The nature of man is prevalent in Slumdog Millionaire, which not only makes this relevant to our studies, but also a more meaningful and overall superb film to view. It definitely deserved all eight Oscars it won this year, and is one of the best films I have viewed. Thank you Slumdog Millionaire!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Blog #17: “Heart of Darkness versus Nature of Man”
First of all, the title “Heart of Darkness” is, in itself, relevant to the earlier discussion of whether the nature of man is innate or formed by his environment. The title suggests that man is evil, but doesn’t do anything as to the reason. In order to retrieve this information, one must read the book Heart of Darkness. In this book, a character named Kurtz is corrupted in the ivory trading business. Through a long, (and boring) jungle river trip, another character named Marlow, discovers that there is a mystery surrounding Kurtz. No one knows how he is able to get all the ivory that he does. As time goes on and the book continues (through describing the water for several pages), Marlow concludes that Kurtz is exploiting the natives for the ivory. Putting himself in the Congo region, forced this evil part out of him. While it is possible that it is innate, I believe his evil source to be his environment. Without the Congo, there would be no ivory, and no evil exploitation process. Kurtz transformed from a curious individual, into a man letting greed run his life. As a result, the natives suffered. The environment caused this, and is the reason for Kurtz’s evil nature.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Blog # 16: "Most Valuable Topic of Second Quarter"
The topic or concept that I found to be most valuable from the second quarter, was that of the United Nations. At the beginning of the unit, I had no idea whatsoever, of the inadequate system in place. I had always viewed the United Nations as what it was supposed to stand for, rather than what it actually did. I believe that there is corruption everywhere in the world, and is a result of greed by the few, at the expense of the many. Our government is certainly no exception to this. And, through this lesson, I learned that the United Nations isn’t either.
The movie we viewed “Broken Promises” really showed the flaws of the UN system. The required assistance to those in need is deflected by the constant debating and useless policies already in place. Because the Rwandan Genocide hadn’t crossed international borders, the UN refused to do anything other than protect the white people located there. They stood by and watched hundreds of thousands of innocent people get slaughtered, when their mission in the world is to prevent things exactly like that. When originally developed, the UN was designed to prohibit events such as a nuclear World War III, provide need to repressed populations, and work towards some level of world peace. Well, all of that is nice on paper, but in reality, corruption is at the heart of every decision made by the UN, and hardly anything comes of it.
The good news is that anything can be changed. With a new President focused on change, and a new generation inheriting a new, but dangerous world, perhaps the United Nations will receive an overhaul, and actually be accountable for the standards it once set for itself. Like I said earlier, the idea is there, all that is needed is the willpower to change.
I take from this unit the fact that in order to survive in the current and upcoming generation, the United Nations must change, or the world will not allow it to continue. This is especially true for America. With ever increasing budget cuts to help aid in this recession, anything that is not effective and vital to our successes, will be cut. And because we provide a good chunk of the UN’s funding, it will not survive without us. Also, I have learned more about international conflicts and the truth behind many of them. This has broadened my knowledge of global events, and will surely serve me in the upcoming years I will spend at college, and for the rest of my life. Personally, anything is possible. They always say “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Maybe if I have a problem with it, I should be the one to challenge it and attempt to change it. Nothing was ever accomplished in history by people merely accepting things the way they are. We, as Americans, have always stood for improving upon, and strengthening programs and events in the world. I guess only time will tell.
The movie we viewed “Broken Promises” really showed the flaws of the UN system. The required assistance to those in need is deflected by the constant debating and useless policies already in place. Because the Rwandan Genocide hadn’t crossed international borders, the UN refused to do anything other than protect the white people located there. They stood by and watched hundreds of thousands of innocent people get slaughtered, when their mission in the world is to prevent things exactly like that. When originally developed, the UN was designed to prohibit events such as a nuclear World War III, provide need to repressed populations, and work towards some level of world peace. Well, all of that is nice on paper, but in reality, corruption is at the heart of every decision made by the UN, and hardly anything comes of it.
The good news is that anything can be changed. With a new President focused on change, and a new generation inheriting a new, but dangerous world, perhaps the United Nations will receive an overhaul, and actually be accountable for the standards it once set for itself. Like I said earlier, the idea is there, all that is needed is the willpower to change.
I take from this unit the fact that in order to survive in the current and upcoming generation, the United Nations must change, or the world will not allow it to continue. This is especially true for America. With ever increasing budget cuts to help aid in this recession, anything that is not effective and vital to our successes, will be cut. And because we provide a good chunk of the UN’s funding, it will not survive without us. Also, I have learned more about international conflicts and the truth behind many of them. This has broadened my knowledge of global events, and will surely serve me in the upcoming years I will spend at college, and for the rest of my life. Personally, anything is possible. They always say “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Maybe if I have a problem with it, I should be the one to challenge it and attempt to change it. Nothing was ever accomplished in history by people merely accepting things the way they are. We, as Americans, have always stood for improving upon, and strengthening programs and events in the world. I guess only time will tell.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Blog #15: "America's Involvement in the United Nations"
After reading the packet on the United Nations and viewing the documentary, “Broken Promises,” I do believe that the concept of the UN is one that is needed in our world today. However, at its current state, the UN is unacceptable by the standards it is supposed to stand for. The largest issue we have dealt with so far is that concerning what activities dictate UN involvement, specifically genocides and genocide-like activities. In the documentary, the fact was presented that when Saddam Hussein killed 1,000s of his own people, the UN did nothing, and only when he crossed into Kuwait, did they authorize force against his strength. The UN allowed him to kill 1,000s of his own people with mustard gas, without doing a single thing. This is very upsetting to me. I believe that no matter where something happens, it is the international community’s responsibility to react and protect the innocent citizens, regardless of if country lines are crossed. At the same time, I believe it to be the international community’s duty, not the United States’ duty to do this. We are the strongest, most powerful country in the world, but there is a limit to what we can and cannot do. I believe that a better UN could accomplish this, and leave us, as the United States, to focus on the immense pile of problems we face in our own country.
The UN packet we received stated that “in the 185-member UN General Assembly, the United States, with nearly 262 million citizens, has the same vote as Palau, with a population of slightly more than 15,000. One hundred two countries, with a combined population less than that of the United States, compose a 55 percent majority, while 166 nations, which is 90 percent, have a combined gross domestic product that is less than that of the United States.” This means that the small countries can overrule the US in a vote, but the US is still stuck paying for a good deal of it. “The United States picks up a quarter of the UN tab.” This is wrong.
To answer the question of the prompt, I do not believe that the UN, in its current state, is still useful as a world peace-keeping organization. Too many flaws and greedy people are involved to make happen what the UN was originally created for. A reform, whether possible or not, is required if the UN wants to remain in our world in the upcoming fifty years. The article for the “no” side of the argument, stated that “$72.5 million in UN finds for Ethiopia were earmarked not to feed the starving but to embellish conference facilities of the UN’s Economic Commission for Africa.” This is but one example to the greed and corruption present in the UN today.
Obviously there is no “perfect” solution to the UN problem, if there was, we’d already have it in place. As I said earlier, the concept of the United Nations is good, it’s just the actual thing that doesn’t live up to expectation. Major reforms must take place to ensure that people who need help, regardless of their situation, receive it, without all the political confusion that currently exists. We are all humans, and an organization such as what the UN could be, is beneficial to the humane treatment of all.
The UN packet we received stated that “in the 185-member UN General Assembly, the United States, with nearly 262 million citizens, has the same vote as Palau, with a population of slightly more than 15,000. One hundred two countries, with a combined population less than that of the United States, compose a 55 percent majority, while 166 nations, which is 90 percent, have a combined gross domestic product that is less than that of the United States.” This means that the small countries can overrule the US in a vote, but the US is still stuck paying for a good deal of it. “The United States picks up a quarter of the UN tab.” This is wrong.
To answer the question of the prompt, I do not believe that the UN, in its current state, is still useful as a world peace-keeping organization. Too many flaws and greedy people are involved to make happen what the UN was originally created for. A reform, whether possible or not, is required if the UN wants to remain in our world in the upcoming fifty years. The article for the “no” side of the argument, stated that “$72.5 million in UN finds for Ethiopia were earmarked not to feed the starving but to embellish conference facilities of the UN’s Economic Commission for Africa.” This is but one example to the greed and corruption present in the UN today.
Obviously there is no “perfect” solution to the UN problem, if there was, we’d already have it in place. As I said earlier, the concept of the United Nations is good, it’s just the actual thing that doesn’t live up to expectation. Major reforms must take place to ensure that people who need help, regardless of their situation, receive it, without all the political confusion that currently exists. We are all humans, and an organization such as what the UN could be, is beneficial to the humane treatment of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
