In both 1984 and the video "Big Brother, Big Business" there are striking similarities. The most striking similarity is the secrecy that "Big Brother" uses while "checking up" on his citizens. While watching the video, I saw many examples of secret "spying." There are companies that use surveillance to have better customer service, companies that gather and sell information, and companies that hold information to track sales. Although I am not against these things, what is unsettling is the fact that all of this information is gathered/obtained surreptitiously. In 1984, much is done in secret also. Winston, for example, works for a company that "edits" files for the government. This act is also done in secret along with vaporization, surveillance, and the secret Thought Police.
I, at this point, so not object to any of these uses of technology. I believe that if you use a good or service provided to you, your information could be used. What I dislike, however, is the idea of companies gathering my information (specifically credit information or social security information) and having the power to sell that information to unreliable sources. I believe that power could be taken to far: the power to sell information. Power can be corrupt (such as in the case of bank companies). I believe that Americans should be weary of this potential breach of power.
I believe if companies could control their power and set guidelines on the amount of information obtained, marketing in the United States could become a larger, even stronger industry. I would consider being "targeted" for a magazine subscription or store coupons as a service. If my information was gathered and analyzed for my benefit, I see nothing to be threatened by.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Blog #2
North Korea's government is strikingly similar to the government in George Orwell's 1984. Both governments have a great amount of power over their people because of censorship. In smaller categories, both governments have control over their people in regards to exercise, media, and regulations. All of these areas of control fall under the more broad category of censorship.
When Winston refers to a mandatory exercise regimen in Orwell's 1984, the reader may think that the reality of the scene is non existent, however, for the citizen's of North Korea, that scene is reality. Both the society in 1984 and North Korea have mandatory exercise regimens. Every morning an "instructress" would appear on the telescreen and lead an exercise routine. On page 37 the instructress says, "We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit." This statement directly relates to the mindset of the North Korean government. The goal of this control is to keep the community "fit."
One of the more obvious similarities between the novel and North Korea is the idea of media censorship. In both societies, information allowed to reach the people is highly censored. For example, in Korea, the radio is the main form of communication. Because of this, the government is able to regulate and control every aspect. Much like the society in 1984, Korea controls much of the information that reaches the general population. This keeps the government in control. Both the society in 1984 and the Korean government control their people with fear. Winston fears a simple act such as writing: "He dipped the pen into the ink and then faltered for just a second. A tremor had gone through his bowels. To mark the paper was the decisive act..." (7). Writing, and all other forms of media, are either censored or completely abolished. Korea, although not to this level, already controls most of the media. If they can, they may even try to abolish forms of media like in 1984.
Regulations control the people of North Korea and 1984. In North Korea the government regulates the vast majority of goods and services. North Korea regulates everything from wages to media. In 1984, the scene is the same. Although in 1984 the regulations are far more severe (such as the regulation of words), North Korea also regulates much of the citizens lives. They regulate wages, media, schools, food, and much more. In 1984, there are regulations of items such as chocolate and razor blades; only a certain amount are produced and available. At one point in the novel Winston says, "I've been using the same blade for six weeks..." (61). The point of these regulations is to "fool" the public when the society wants to "create" more of these items, and in North Korea, this idea may not be too far off.
Although not as severe, North Korea's control of it's people is very similar to the control of the people in the book. The future of North Korea and it's people may be found in a novel named 1984.
When Winston refers to a mandatory exercise regimen in Orwell's 1984, the reader may think that the reality of the scene is non existent, however, for the citizen's of North Korea, that scene is reality. Both the society in 1984 and North Korea have mandatory exercise regimens. Every morning an "instructress" would appear on the telescreen and lead an exercise routine. On page 37 the instructress says, "We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit." This statement directly relates to the mindset of the North Korean government. The goal of this control is to keep the community "fit."
One of the more obvious similarities between the novel and North Korea is the idea of media censorship. In both societies, information allowed to reach the people is highly censored. For example, in Korea, the radio is the main form of communication. Because of this, the government is able to regulate and control every aspect. Much like the society in 1984, Korea controls much of the information that reaches the general population. This keeps the government in control. Both the society in 1984 and the Korean government control their people with fear. Winston fears a simple act such as writing: "He dipped the pen into the ink and then faltered for just a second. A tremor had gone through his bowels. To mark the paper was the decisive act..." (7). Writing, and all other forms of media, are either censored or completely abolished. Korea, although not to this level, already controls most of the media. If they can, they may even try to abolish forms of media like in 1984.
Regulations control the people of North Korea and 1984. In North Korea the government regulates the vast majority of goods and services. North Korea regulates everything from wages to media. In 1984, the scene is the same. Although in 1984 the regulations are far more severe (such as the regulation of words), North Korea also regulates much of the citizens lives. They regulate wages, media, schools, food, and much more. In 1984, there are regulations of items such as chocolate and razor blades; only a certain amount are produced and available. At one point in the novel Winston says, "I've been using the same blade for six weeks..." (61). The point of these regulations is to "fool" the public when the society wants to "create" more of these items, and in North Korea, this idea may not be too far off.
Although not as severe, North Korea's control of it's people is very similar to the control of the people in the book. The future of North Korea and it's people may be found in a novel named 1984.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
There are many similarities between "Newspeak" and our censorship of language. By censoring words, it is hoped that no one would be able to be "offended" or not understand a word. For example, the words "pop" and "soda" are banned because of a "regional bias." It is assumed that if you live up north and the word "soda" is used, no one living up north would know what "soda" is. Syme says to Wilson, "Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller." By banning and censoring words, the intellect of humans decreases. There would no longer be two words for a carbonated beverage, only one. That means there is one less word in a humans vocabulary. Multiply this affect by a large quantity and one would find a very simple version of man, and the prospects of a world strikingly similar to the world in 1984.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
1984
In George Orwell's 1984, thought and words are controlled. There is a parallel to the idea of controlled thought and controlled words. If words are removed, thought will become more simplified. This connecting is extremely evident in Orwell's novel of a future society. In 1984 the point of removing words is to control thoughts, thus, ridding the society of "Thought Crime." New dictionaries are created every year with drastically fewer worlds each year before. This "new" language is called Newspeak. Newspeak is a major influence in 1984. With strict regulations regarding everything citizens do, say, and think, Newspeak takes the control to a new level: what the citizens know/learn. Through Newspeak, words are abolished. Citizens learn fewer words, which directly impacts how they think and speak. Winston's friend, in charge of creating the Newspeak dictionary, asks Winston: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it" (52). By abolishing words, the citizens' thoughts are molded into just what the society desires for the sole goal of control.
Today, there are institutions that use language to alter the thoughts of citizens and distort reality. For example, when someone is sent to jail, often the system calls jail "rehabilitation." The "outsiders" of the institution believe that the inmate is receiving treatment for his problems. However, often the truth is not so. The reality of the situation is far from rehabilitation. Often the inmate receives little to no treatment and is deemed "untreatable." The criminal institution uses language such as "rehabilitation" and "untreatable" to distort the reality behind the situation.
Also, a great example of language used to distort reality is the phrase of "Interrogation Techniques" coined by former President George W. Bush. I have learned through both outside sources and our class that "Interrogation Techniques" is another word for torture. Bush's "fluffed" language can be found anywhere: "...Bush’s Executive Order authorized interrogators to use military dogs, “stress positions,” sleep “management,” loud music and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.” to extract information from detainees in Iraq" (msnbc.com). By using phrases such as "stress positions" and "sleep management" Bush is able to make torture sound not bad at all.
What is most sad about the act of using language to distort reality? Those who do not have the intellect nor knowledge of how reality is distorted are oblivious to reality, and fall into what the "distorter" wants. The good thing in our society is one cannot be "vaporized" for housing the knowledge and intellect needed in order to see the truth.
Today, there are institutions that use language to alter the thoughts of citizens and distort reality. For example, when someone is sent to jail, often the system calls jail "rehabilitation." The "outsiders" of the institution believe that the inmate is receiving treatment for his problems. However, often the truth is not so. The reality of the situation is far from rehabilitation. Often the inmate receives little to no treatment and is deemed "untreatable." The criminal institution uses language such as "rehabilitation" and "untreatable" to distort the reality behind the situation.
Also, a great example of language used to distort reality is the phrase of "Interrogation Techniques" coined by former President George W. Bush. I have learned through both outside sources and our class that "Interrogation Techniques" is another word for torture. Bush's "fluffed" language can be found anywhere: "...Bush’s Executive Order authorized interrogators to use military dogs, “stress positions,” sleep “management,” loud music and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.” to extract information from detainees in Iraq" (msnbc.com). By using phrases such as "stress positions" and "sleep management" Bush is able to make torture sound not bad at all.
What is most sad about the act of using language to distort reality? Those who do not have the intellect nor knowledge of how reality is distorted are oblivious to reality, and fall into what the "distorter" wants. The good thing in our society is one cannot be "vaporized" for housing the knowledge and intellect needed in order to see the truth.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Cloning
With all of the information I have obtained thus far, my opinion on cloning has not changed since the start of this topic being discussed in class. I am still against it. I believe that by cloning, we are messing with something that is not meant to be messed with: human lives. I do not believe it is safe NOR morally ethical to play "God." Sure, maybe choosing the sex of your baby is not too bad, but in America I believe we have a problem "drawing the line." Where would the cloning stop? Pretty soon we would be "creating" all smart, athletic, beautiful babies. One may ask what the problem with this is. The problem is that we would loose all diversity in America.
The Newsweek article polled Americans asking whether they approved of embryo testing to choose the gender of their baby. Only 28% approved. However, they were also polled to see if they approved of embryo testing for just genetic tests. A large 74% of citizen's approved. This is an interesting statistic. Americans seem to believe that genetic testing is more "ethical/moral" then simply choosing the gender of their child. I also agree, but, I believe that through genetic testing we are still playing "God." If one scientist goes through embryos and tests for diseases, those embryos most likely will NOT be used. I think that this "selection" is immoral and too "God like." Of course, in the situation of being a mother, I would want the best for a child...but I don't even think that the option should be available. It will only escalate to larger and more "selection." This would send us on our way to a bland, not diverse America.
In the cloning video, straight cloning was discussed more than genetic engineering. I feel the same way about straight cloning. Cloning even seems more like a waste to me. I know it is a really cool scientific breakthrough, but again I believe we would be playing "God." I am not an extremely religious person, but I do believe that not one person is like another. I know there are twins, but twins are not a scientific breakthrough..they have always been in existence. The video says that cloning could open more doors in all aspects of life, and I agree. Cloning food, seeds, and other organic materials could greatly benefit our lives. I do not think human or animal lives should be messed with. Playing "God" is immoral and just plain wrong. Although cloning is a scientific discovery and pretty neat, it should be kept with things such as food, not humans.
The Newsweek article polled Americans asking whether they approved of embryo testing to choose the gender of their baby. Only 28% approved. However, they were also polled to see if they approved of embryo testing for just genetic tests. A large 74% of citizen's approved. This is an interesting statistic. Americans seem to believe that genetic testing is more "ethical/moral" then simply choosing the gender of their child. I also agree, but, I believe that through genetic testing we are still playing "God." If one scientist goes through embryos and tests for diseases, those embryos most likely will NOT be used. I think that this "selection" is immoral and too "God like." Of course, in the situation of being a mother, I would want the best for a child...but I don't even think that the option should be available. It will only escalate to larger and more "selection." This would send us on our way to a bland, not diverse America.
In the cloning video, straight cloning was discussed more than genetic engineering. I feel the same way about straight cloning. Cloning even seems more like a waste to me. I know it is a really cool scientific breakthrough, but again I believe we would be playing "God." I am not an extremely religious person, but I do believe that not one person is like another. I know there are twins, but twins are not a scientific breakthrough..they have always been in existence. The video says that cloning could open more doors in all aspects of life, and I agree. Cloning food, seeds, and other organic materials could greatly benefit our lives. I do not think human or animal lives should be messed with. Playing "God" is immoral and just plain wrong. Although cloning is a scientific discovery and pretty neat, it should be kept with things such as food, not humans.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Karl Marx Blog
With a capitalist society, class conflict is inevitable. Karl Marx proposed this ideology within his lifetime from 1818-1883. In the article "Karl Marx," there is a lot of evidence to support what Karl Marx believed. One of his stronger points implies that Capitalist nations do not care about the labourers, only the products created: "The Capitalist possesses this power, not on account of his personal or human qualities, but inasmuch as he is an owner of a capital." This, in turn, causes separation of classes. When each labourer is paid differently, there is a natural separation of classes. The higher paid labourers are the "high" class, and the lower paid labourers are the "lower class." When one is paid more, he is able to afford more and be seen as a "higher" individual. This proves Karl Marx's belief that Capitalist nations make class conflict inevitable.
I agree with Karl Marx, however, I do not see class conflict as a negative aspect of life. I do not see Communism as a positive political system like Karl Marx does; I believe there is no problem with class conflict. Separation between classes is inevitable within a positive political system. If one works harder, he makes more money. Others choose to see the members of the "high class" as high class. It is an individual's choice to view others based on their appearance and possessions. If there is a separation of classes, so be it. I do not believe there is much negative that can come from it. Therefore, I believe with the idea that class conflict is inevitable in a Capitalist Society, but see no problem with that conflict.
In both Brave New World and Marx's ideology, class conflict is caused by a "higher force." In Brave New World, class conflict is engineered while in a Capitalist Nation the government causes it. In both references, the higher force "creates" classes to it's wishes. Also, there is an undeniable class conflict in both. The only difference is that the citizens in Brave New World don't control their class and members of a real society do (even if Marx doesn't believe so). There is much more control for citizens of a Capitalist nation compared to those in the novel Brave New World.
I agree with Karl Marx, however, I do not see class conflict as a negative aspect of life. I do not see Communism as a positive political system like Karl Marx does; I believe there is no problem with class conflict. Separation between classes is inevitable within a positive political system. If one works harder, he makes more money. Others choose to see the members of the "high class" as high class. It is an individual's choice to view others based on their appearance and possessions. If there is a separation of classes, so be it. I do not believe there is much negative that can come from it. Therefore, I believe with the idea that class conflict is inevitable in a Capitalist Society, but see no problem with that conflict.
In both Brave New World and Marx's ideology, class conflict is caused by a "higher force." In Brave New World, class conflict is engineered while in a Capitalist Nation the government causes it. In both references, the higher force "creates" classes to it's wishes. Also, there is an undeniable class conflict in both. The only difference is that the citizens in Brave New World don't control their class and members of a real society do (even if Marx doesn't believe so). There is much more control for citizens of a Capitalist nation compared to those in the novel Brave New World.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The World State society, although seemingly perfect, has unquestionable flaws within it's control.
First, there is no true diversity within the society. One is either an alpha, beta, gamma, delta, or epsilon. Each one of these castes has a different duty. A person (engineered in a tube) does not have control over their future; their future is engineered for them for the good of the society.
Second, how the "perfect society" is engineered is flawed. Playing information and, in essence, brainwashing children while they are sleeping draws serious criticism.
Happiness is directly related to soma. It is said that a gram of soma gets rid of your troubles. Comparable to drugs in our time, soma in this era is what makes the people happy. The question, however, is are the people actually happy? Soma MAKES people happy, but many would argue that happiness is generated from within, not forced through drugs. This is where the truth comes into the equation. Are the people truly happy? Bernard and Helmholtz believe not. They believe that the people are not happy because they lack freedom. Freedom has been pushed down from childhood. Sometimes, that freedom attempts to surface as Helmholtz says "...feeling that I've got something important to say and the power to say it..." (69). However, for most, freedom is killed.
There is a strong connection between soma, truth, and happiness. Without soma, there is no happiness. Dreams caused by soma are not the truth, therefore, happiness is found at the expense of the truth. Is happiness worth the price of the truth?
First, there is no true diversity within the society. One is either an alpha, beta, gamma, delta, or epsilon. Each one of these castes has a different duty. A person (engineered in a tube) does not have control over their future; their future is engineered for them for the good of the society.
Second, how the "perfect society" is engineered is flawed. Playing information and, in essence, brainwashing children while they are sleeping draws serious criticism.
Happiness is directly related to soma. It is said that a gram of soma gets rid of your troubles. Comparable to drugs in our time, soma in this era is what makes the people happy. The question, however, is are the people actually happy? Soma MAKES people happy, but many would argue that happiness is generated from within, not forced through drugs. This is where the truth comes into the equation. Are the people truly happy? Bernard and Helmholtz believe not. They believe that the people are not happy because they lack freedom. Freedom has been pushed down from childhood. Sometimes, that freedom attempts to surface as Helmholtz says "...feeling that I've got something important to say and the power to say it..." (69). However, for most, freedom is killed.
There is a strong connection between soma, truth, and happiness. Without soma, there is no happiness. Dreams caused by soma are not the truth, therefore, happiness is found at the expense of the truth. Is happiness worth the price of the truth?
Monday, March 22, 2010
Healthcare
Health care in the United States needs to be drastically reformed: Insurance companies have turned into businesses with profit motives. The movie "Dead Meat" says that competition is positive, and compares the advertisements of animal hospitals to those of "people" hospitals. The movie states that the competition is what makes businesses "better." All competition does is drive up costs. My question is, should those who are less fortunate suffer because they can't afford to visit a doctor? By turning American insurance agencies into businesses, we are also risking human lives. Business isn't all positive, there are the backhanded employees who have their own hidden motives. This can be found in the movie "Sicko." A woman was interviewed who had received a large bonus because she denied the most citizens coverage. Although she later admitted this, I am sure there are many other employees who would not admit that. These flaws in the system prove that the state of health care in the US is in need of reform.
The video "Dead Meat" spent a lot of time talking about the "waiting list" for surgeries. I completely agree that the "waiting list" is a negative aspect of universal health care, but I question why the movie didn't talk about any other countries as well. Canada was the only example. Can't we develop a better system in the USA? I do not necessarily agree our country should jump into universal health care, but I definitely think it should be a future goal.
The article "Michael Moore and the Beige Bomber" states that a nationalized health care system would make as many cost effectiveness decisions as an insurance company. Although this is true and a negative aspect, nationalized health care would NOT deny coverage or cap health care costs like a company would. Therefore, no citizen of the United States would have to worry about being denied coverage, and less people would die. Isn't the death of innocent citizens enough to want to make a change?
Reformed health care is a good idea for the well being of American citizens. Thanks to the bill recently passed, our country is going to take a step in the right direction.
The video "Dead Meat" spent a lot of time talking about the "waiting list" for surgeries. I completely agree that the "waiting list" is a negative aspect of universal health care, but I question why the movie didn't talk about any other countries as well. Canada was the only example. Can't we develop a better system in the USA? I do not necessarily agree our country should jump into universal health care, but I definitely think it should be a future goal.
The article "Michael Moore and the Beige Bomber" states that a nationalized health care system would make as many cost effectiveness decisions as an insurance company. Although this is true and a negative aspect, nationalized health care would NOT deny coverage or cap health care costs like a company would. Therefore, no citizen of the United States would have to worry about being denied coverage, and less people would die. Isn't the death of innocent citizens enough to want to make a change?
Reformed health care is a good idea for the well being of American citizens. Thanks to the bill recently passed, our country is going to take a step in the right direction.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Issue #8 Blog
Both sides of the taking sides article "Should the United States Preemptively Attack Iranian Nuclear Facilities?" believe something "fishy" is going on in Iran in respect to nuclear advances. Although there is something odd going on, I do not believe the United States has any reason to bomb Iran.
The "yes" side of the argument states, "What argues for early preemption is the risk that self defense may come too late if it waits too long." The problem with this argument can be seen because we have no evidence of nuclear facilities in operation with intent of harming other countries. Not only is there no evidence, but it is proven that Iranians do not have the mental capacity to construct weapons of mass destruction: "...the state oil company still cannot drill exploratory wells without foreign assistance" (141). If Iran is not able to drill it's own oil, resulting in having to "import one third of the gasoline it consumes because it cannot be refined at home" (141), how would Iran be able to construct nuclear weapons? America's fear is driving it's desire to bomb a country that is not capable of harming us.
Iran, without the mental capacity and means to construct nuclear weapons, is of no concern to America. Bombing Iran would only cause more problems. Other countries would see us as the aggressor. Some believe it would be good for other countries to fear us, but I believe if other countries fear us, they would be more quick to unleash their attacks on the United States if there was a conflict.
There is no reason to bomb Iran without plausible evidence that the country has nuclear weapons and intends on using them. America has nuclear weapons, why can we have them while other countries can't?
The "yes" side of the argument states, "What argues for early preemption is the risk that self defense may come too late if it waits too long." The problem with this argument can be seen because we have no evidence of nuclear facilities in operation with intent of harming other countries. Not only is there no evidence, but it is proven that Iranians do not have the mental capacity to construct weapons of mass destruction: "...the state oil company still cannot drill exploratory wells without foreign assistance" (141). If Iran is not able to drill it's own oil, resulting in having to "import one third of the gasoline it consumes because it cannot be refined at home" (141), how would Iran be able to construct nuclear weapons? America's fear is driving it's desire to bomb a country that is not capable of harming us.
Iran, without the mental capacity and means to construct nuclear weapons, is of no concern to America. Bombing Iran would only cause more problems. Other countries would see us as the aggressor. Some believe it would be good for other countries to fear us, but I believe if other countries fear us, they would be more quick to unleash their attacks on the United States if there was a conflict.
There is no reason to bomb Iran without plausible evidence that the country has nuclear weapons and intends on using them. America has nuclear weapons, why can we have them while other countries can't?
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Prince Blog
One is able to see why Machiavelli is associated with evil. Between the belief that one must step on friends to achieve power and his belief that a Prince must destroy a city to gain a Princedom, it is hard not to see the evil methods of Machiavelli. Although seemingly evil, are Machiavelli's methods that absurd..or just crazy enough to be successful?
One of Machiavelli's most evil point is found on page 12, "The memory of their former freedom will not let them rest; so that the safest course is either to destroy them, or to go and live in them." Machiavelli believes that a Prince must destroy a city to gain power. This is very evil because he is basically saying a Prince must kill a city so he is able to mold it into the Princedom he most desires. In order to gain power, a Prince must totally level a city and rebuild it.
Although his methods seem harsh, Machiavelli does have some points that seem to hold true: "...hereditary States, accustomed to the family of their Prince, are maintained with far less difficulty than new States..." (1). This passage is correct. An example is a family owned business. If "Smuckers" jam has been ran by the Smuckers family for over 100 years and all of the sudden a "Anderson" came to run the business, there are many people who would loose respect for the brand. Just like a Princedom, if a Princedom has been on a bloodline for hundreds of years, the people would question the next family/ruler.
Machiavelli's methods are still in effect to this date. The most obvious is the idea that to gain success one must make enemies and step on friends. Machiavelli writes, "he who is the cause of another's greatness is himself undone" (8). This quote describes the ladder to power, and every person the Prince must step in is a rung. This can be seen often in high school. Many (thankfully not me) students feel the need to "step" on friends who aren't as popular to gain the ultimate popularity. Often, girls especially, will use other girls to gain what they wish: popularity.
Although the methods of Machiavelli seem evil and crazy, these methods have proven in Machiavelli and our times to be effective. Because of the nature of man, these methods will most likely be universal and infinite.
One of Machiavelli's most evil point is found on page 12, "The memory of their former freedom will not let them rest; so that the safest course is either to destroy them, or to go and live in them." Machiavelli believes that a Prince must destroy a city to gain power. This is very evil because he is basically saying a Prince must kill a city so he is able to mold it into the Princedom he most desires. In order to gain power, a Prince must totally level a city and rebuild it.
Although his methods seem harsh, Machiavelli does have some points that seem to hold true: "...hereditary States, accustomed to the family of their Prince, are maintained with far less difficulty than new States..." (1). This passage is correct. An example is a family owned business. If "Smuckers" jam has been ran by the Smuckers family for over 100 years and all of the sudden a "Anderson" came to run the business, there are many people who would loose respect for the brand. Just like a Princedom, if a Princedom has been on a bloodline for hundreds of years, the people would question the next family/ruler.
Machiavelli's methods are still in effect to this date. The most obvious is the idea that to gain success one must make enemies and step on friends. Machiavelli writes, "he who is the cause of another's greatness is himself undone" (8). This quote describes the ladder to power, and every person the Prince must step in is a rung. This can be seen often in high school. Many (thankfully not me) students feel the need to "step" on friends who aren't as popular to gain the ultimate popularity. Often, girls especially, will use other girls to gain what they wish: popularity.
Although the methods of Machiavelli seem evil and crazy, these methods have proven in Machiavelli and our times to be effective. Because of the nature of man, these methods will most likely be universal and infinite.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Darfur
Sending troops into Darfur is our obligation as the seemingly most powerful country. Yes, maybe the "conflict" is not America's problem, but it is America's obligation. I believe America should send peacekeeping troops to Darfur. Lawrence F. Kaplin writes, "...don't pretend that Darfur will be saved by anything else." Darfur cannot resolve it's own conflict, and no other nations have stepped up in the long history surrounding the conflict. Because of this, I believe America should step up to send troops.
The opposition believes that sending troops would cause America to be stuck in Darfur. David Rieff believes that by sending troops to Darfur America would be "rubbing salt on that global wound." He also says doing that would be "morally unworthy." This poses an interesting question. Is it more immoral to watch the genocide and do nothing about it, or try to help?
Sending troops to Darfur is not only the right action to take, but the most moral. As the most powerful and able country, we should do the right thing and send troops to Darfur.
The opposition believes that sending troops would cause America to be stuck in Darfur. David Rieff believes that by sending troops to Darfur America would be "rubbing salt on that global wound." He also says doing that would be "morally unworthy." This poses an interesting question. Is it more immoral to watch the genocide and do nothing about it, or try to help?
Sending troops to Darfur is not only the right action to take, but the most moral. As the most powerful and able country, we should do the right thing and send troops to Darfur.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Blog #8
Kurtz's dying words: "The horror, the horror."
Throughout Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," the horrors of the human heart are revealed. As Marlow and his crew sail deeper and deeper into the heart of darkness, the environment begins to shape the men. The deeper they go, the more isolated and subjected they become to the "horrors" of the Congo. On page 16, Marlow talks about the "grove of death" (the clearing where the natives are left to die). This is not the only mention of the horrors the crew must face on their journey. On the very last page of the novel, page 72, "The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds...seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness." Joseph Conrad had chosen to end his novel with his theme of darkness, and the horrors that come with it. I believe Kurtz was not only talking about the horrors in the human heart, but the horrors he faced in the Congo every day.
Throughout Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," the horrors of the human heart are revealed. As Marlow and his crew sail deeper and deeper into the heart of darkness, the environment begins to shape the men. The deeper they go, the more isolated and subjected they become to the "horrors" of the Congo. On page 16, Marlow talks about the "grove of death" (the clearing where the natives are left to die). This is not the only mention of the horrors the crew must face on their journey. On the very last page of the novel, page 72, "The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds...seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness." Joseph Conrad had chosen to end his novel with his theme of darkness, and the horrors that come with it. I believe Kurtz was not only talking about the horrors in the human heart, but the horrors he faced in the Congo every day.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Blog #7 "Darkness"
Throughout Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness the motif of darkness is effectively used as a symbol to portray the theme of his novel. The title, for example, is the first glimpse the reader has at Joseph Conrad's theme. The African Congo is the heart of Africa. The happenings in the Congo tell a dark tale, therefore, the heart of Africa becomes the heart of darkness.
Also, the motif of darkness is used throughout the novel. At times the author blatantly tells the author of his theme, "We penetrated deeper and deeper into the heart of darkness." (31) "This has been one of the darkest places on earth" and "...had become a place of darkness." (4, 6) are two examples of Marlow's dialogue in the novel that is directed towards the theme Joseph Conrad depicts: darkness. Representing the evil doing of humans, darkness is easily found in the novel. The darkness of slavery, inhumane treatment, and ulterior motives all show the reader the darkness (evil) that exists in the human race.
The meaning of darkness is a constant throughout Heart of Darkness. Although it's examples may change forms, the common theme of the evil in humans hearts has and will be shown in this novel.
In the second grading period, my favorite lesson was the book Three Cups of Tea. Along with the book, I found it extremely worthwhile to learn (through packets) of the political struggles involved with the Afghan government. The readings, preceding the book, genuinely helped me understand the novel at a non-superficial level. Before that lesson, I had absolutely no knowledge of the opium trade. First, I didn't know what opium was. Second, I had no clue that Afghanistan was a huge contributor of opium. After learning about these issues, I was amazed at how much these topics were mentioned in the book. Also, I began to notice the issues discussed on the news. It amazes me that I must have simply looked over this topic and now I am enlightened to the actual affect and meaning. Now, every time I hear opium mentioned on the news, I can connect it to something.
Also, the motif of darkness is used throughout the novel. At times the author blatantly tells the author of his theme, "We penetrated deeper and deeper into the heart of darkness." (31) "This has been one of the darkest places on earth" and "...had become a place of darkness." (4, 6) are two examples of Marlow's dialogue in the novel that is directed towards the theme Joseph Conrad depicts: darkness. Representing the evil doing of humans, darkness is easily found in the novel. The darkness of slavery, inhumane treatment, and ulterior motives all show the reader the darkness (evil) that exists in the human race.
The meaning of darkness is a constant throughout Heart of Darkness. Although it's examples may change forms, the common theme of the evil in humans hearts has and will be shown in this novel.
In the second grading period, my favorite lesson was the book Three Cups of Tea. Along with the book, I found it extremely worthwhile to learn (through packets) of the political struggles involved with the Afghan government. The readings, preceding the book, genuinely helped me understand the novel at a non-superficial level. Before that lesson, I had absolutely no knowledge of the opium trade. First, I didn't know what opium was. Second, I had no clue that Afghanistan was a huge contributor of opium. After learning about these issues, I was amazed at how much these topics were mentioned in the book. Also, I began to notice the issues discussed on the news. It amazes me that I must have simply looked over this topic and now I am enlightened to the actual affect and meaning. Now, every time I hear opium mentioned on the news, I can connect it to something.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Heart of Darkness
The Congo is so often referred to as the "Heart of Africa." Because the setting of the novel Heart of Darkness, is in the Congo, the title is very applicable. With white men coming into the Congo and enslaving the blacks, the heart of Africa has turned into more of a dark pit. The heart of Africa has become the heart of darkness.
"Behind this raw matter one of the reclaimed, the product of new forces at work, strolled despondently, carrying a rifle by it's middle." (13) This description is of a white man who is in control of the slaves in the "iron collars." Going back to our previous lessons, this can be applied to the nature vs. nurture debate. The man in control of the slaves is under the command of a higher force, "He had a uniform jacket..." (13) Therefore, he is only doing his job by following orders, right? That question is debatable, because to some that is the truth, but to others this man has a moral obligation to do what is humane.
Either way, the title of the book brilliantly includes the setting of the "Heart of Africa" as well as the darkness that is ominously looming over the people in it. By mixing these to idea's/themes, Joseph Conrad has created at title which can give the reader an idea about what will happen.
"Behind this raw matter one of the reclaimed, the product of new forces at work, strolled despondently, carrying a rifle by it's middle." (13) This description is of a white man who is in control of the slaves in the "iron collars." Going back to our previous lessons, this can be applied to the nature vs. nurture debate. The man in control of the slaves is under the command of a higher force, "He had a uniform jacket..." (13) Therefore, he is only doing his job by following orders, right? That question is debatable, because to some that is the truth, but to others this man has a moral obligation to do what is humane.
Either way, the title of the book brilliantly includes the setting of the "Heart of Africa" as well as the darkness that is ominously looming over the people in it. By mixing these to idea's/themes, Joseph Conrad has created at title which can give the reader an idea about what will happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)