Big Business, Big Brother

In “1984” the government watches over every citizen through the thought police and the telescreen, I see a very eerie similarity in our world with government surveillance they talk so much about in the video “Big Business, Big Brother.” I can see increasing surveillance in places such as casinos, banks, even retail stores for security purposes due to theft, cheating, etc. but when the government places cameras along public beaches I start to wonder when are we not being watched. Another example of us being constantly kept by the government is the use of our cell phones. I think keeping records is good for not only the company but also law enforcement investigations, but when that information is available on the internet things start to cross the line. These days it is hard for any one thing in this world to be kept private and not be found on the internet somewhere.
I felt most threatened by NORA because this is a program that strips us as citizens of any privacy to look and see the people we come in contact with. The program seems to be a good idea and started for the right reasons but that’s the thing, who is there to make sure these types of programs are being used correctly and not abused; “Who’s going to watch the watchers?” (Big Business, Big Brother). The other example I felt uneasy about is Matrix. All the programs seem to go hand in hand that they are taking a complete look at one’s life without and limitations. I guess I don’t mind if my information is there for the government to have but what I am scared of is how will I ever know if the wrong person is taking a look at it. The MATRIX program was referred to as “A database filled with information of everyday innocent people” which brings up the point how do they know they have the right person and not digging into an innocent by standards life.
I like the idea of Biometrics, I think it is a great way to increase security for going through places such as an airport. It isn’t something that can be forged such as a fake I.D.; Biometrics scans your physical features, your finger prints, skin texture and even eye identification. It is something I find could be very useful to security around the country in preventing terrorism.

1984 Blog 1

Newspeak takes away the individual thought process so people cant think for themselves. It takes away antonyms and synonyms so people cant rebel against the Party. It relates a lot to “Brave New World” as how the government is trying to take away individuality so the people cant think for themselves and they wont cause any problems or be any sort of threat to the Party. First example is how Bush said we were going to war to take away the nuclear weapons Iraq supposedly had seemed as it was a pointless reason for us to go to war on terrorism because as we all know there wasn’t any nuclear weapons found. Another example is when Dave Obey came to our school and when questions were asked by students and it didn’t seem he knew the answers he would play off words and other ideas to make it seem as though he was answering the question when truly he wasn’t answering at all.

Cloning

There are so many different things I think of when the topic cloning comes to mind. My opinion on cloning is I disagree with it; I think it is immoral and we should leave human creation to Mother Nature. Through the notes I have read about the movie I missed they talk about therapeutic cloning which clones organs of the human body that can be donated to people with troubled or non-functioning organs. It seems this could be a great aid to the medical field but the thing I am most scared of especially after reading “Brave New World” is if we start to clone little things such as animals and organs I don’t think there is anything that can stop us from cloning human beings. In the article it mentions parents being able to choose the gender and things such as genetic engineering is terrifying to think of; there are obvious advantages to do cloning and have genetic engineering such as eliminating diseases at birth but just to think if this scientific intelligence would fall into the wrong hands such as Hitler for instance he could and probably would have created a superhuman race that could have ruled the world. It’s scary to think of what the future can bring and we have to learn to chose wisely as to what is best for that future.

Brave New World/Karl Marx

1. I believe Karl Marx thinks class conflict is inevitable in a capitalist society is answered in one sentence from the packet itself, “Capitalist work to protect capitalism while workers struggle to destroy capitalism” (Pg/229). Of course there will be class conflict when there are two groups in the same society with completely opposite intentions.

2. I disagree with Marx’s idea of communism. We had a discussion in class that I completely agreed with, when we talked about the article and how Marx wanted a stable society by taking away private property, we also brought up that would take away competition. I think competition is what strives an individual in a society to go the extra mile and achieve the impossible. In the United States if we were to follow Marx’s idea of government who knows what we as a country never would have accomplished.

3. I find Marx’s theory on class conflict and the view of class in “Brave New World” are very similar. Marx wanted to take away all private property and competition to maintain a stable society; by taking away these things Marx believes there will be no conflict in society because there can be no wars in his governed society. “Brave New World” is almost the exact same theory; in “Brave New World” their idea is to maintain a stable society they teach specific jobs to each of the five groups and teach them nothing more and nothing less. It is not exactly stated in the book but in my mind their idea is to abolish all individual thinking, which makes since to have a perfect stable society because if no one is able to think for themselves than there is no one to stand up against the government. Soma plays a key part in this book mainly because it is the perfect drug for the people, not only do they love this drug, it is what keeps each person inline and content with their pointless lives.

Brave New World #1

Bernard stands out among the other two Helmholtz and John mostly because he seems to be a major character. It is sort of hard to tell with Bernard; we can see he doesn’t believe in the lifestyle of the people around him for example when he holds his ground and will not touch the soma but then there are few occurrences where he seems to give in at the most random times such as after his day out with Lenina. Bernard seems to understand what seems wrong with the World State is that it is a disguise or a false sense of happiness almost as if everyone is just covering up the pains in life along with other emotional troubles.
Soma plays a big roll in this society, it is the drug almost everyone uses to be happy and free of pain or sorrow. This is the ideal happiness in this society but what only few seem to understand such as Bernard this happiness is just a cover up of the truth. By taking the drug soma one is impaired to think for himself as if he gives up his individuality to become so-called happy and content with life.
The connection to ecstasy is like hitting the nail on the head. The video in class made the connection even more clear that ecstasy is a drug used to calm one’s self and to let free of stress, pain and sorrow. When interviewed some people at a party they said ecstasy enabled them to open up in ways they cannot when they are sober. To me personally that is a bunch of bologna because how can we be sure of anything coming from a person high on drugs. In the book soma is meant for almost exactly the same exact thing, but the difference that comes to my mind isn't straight forward in the story, I believe soma is a drug their government promotes the use of so that people are unable to get wise and think for themselves. One can do what he wishes with all the brainwashed people who are content with whatever is given to them and no one to even think of speaking out against it.

Health Care Utopia?

To start I think this topic on health care is a great topic for us to be learning about especially for me seeing as health care could be a problem in the future. It opened my eyes to what is available out there and soon enough like it or not as students we are all going to have to get our own insurance in the next coming year or two. Now if I was a clean slate the “Sicko” documentary would have driven me out of the United States the next day to begin a new life in Canada or France because of their Utopian health care system. When Moore shows people that have preexisting health problems like myself who get turned down by insurance companies in the U.S. and then just over seas he shows citizens getting treated for what they say is no cost to them at all. Well then why would we even think about living in this country?
With a Michael Moore documentary we can never take exactly what he says as the whole truth without doing some more research. What we don’t see is how the free health care in other countries take a huge hit on their taxes; which makes total sense as the “Beige Bomber” document tells us the money has to obviously come from somewhere. This document agrees with Moore in saying there is definitely a problem with our health care system and I agree too, but what in this world is perfect? Absolutely nothing. “People tend to use things more frequently when they are free” - (Beige Bomber). This is of course the truth I mean why not take advantage of something free, but this is also the problem; it is easy to see this would fill the hospitals fast and in comes the huge waiting list as mentioned in the “Dead Meat” documentary. For simple yet crucial things such as an eye surgery as referenced in the documentary isn't priority so therefore is set back on the list. I know I wouldn’t want to wait to get treated I would much rather pay the money for instant gratification, which seems to be the motto of people in the U.S. Another thing I find wrong with government controlled health care system that I found in the “Beige Bomber” is just that, government controlled. It would take away from my ability to decide what I need to be seen for instead they choose what is or isn't important, not my vision of a utopian health care system. For people that are on the fence about what is a better health care system I would leave them with this: Take your pick, spend money to get what treatment is needed today or keep your money and wait to see if you get the chance to get treated.
Also taking my future into account, I want to become a doctor and yes “Sicko” showed that one doctor had a pretty good life but nothing special; it seemed sketchy that they only showed one doctor. After years and years of schooling I want my job to have great reward by making more than enough to not have to worry about any expenses. I would definitely stay in the U.S. and deal with health insurance here than go to another country’s crooked utopia.

Preidential Advisor

When we read the first couple chapters of The Prince it was hard to understand why Machiavelli was writing about the different types of Princedoms, but then in class when we discussed how his tactics compared to more current years that we as students know made reading all the more clear. After reading the entire book it is clear to me The Prince is almost the unofficial guide book to rulers of a country, it would be interesting to see how the book may change if there were the same type of book written about the leaders in the past decade from the current year.
My three lessons to the President as his advisor are as follows:

1. In chapter XV Machiavelli touches on the relationship between a leader and his subjects. It is obvious that a leader should try his hardest to stay on their good side because in places like the United States we as citizens can almost as easily terminate a leader as he was elected. Now besides being on good terms with one’s subjects he must find the line of being loved and being feared. It is better to be feared than loved in the words of Machiavelli because being feared has power whereas love can only hurt one in the long run by others that take advantage of your love. By being on good terms with one’s subjects he can be more secure of himself as their leader.

2. “Two ways of contending, one in ordinance with the laws, the other by force.” In other words maintaining peace in a state are either maintained by the laws of that state or the ruler can take it into his own hands and deal with it by force. The advice here is to learn when one must let the law take action or to take matters into one’s own hands. Things such as keeping the peace among one’s subjects the written laws of the state may not always be enough which is when the ruler must use the power he has to make things obedient among them. This will make things throughout the ruler’s time run everything smoothly by not having to deal with unimportant complications by his subjects.

3. The last lesson I would give to our new president is not one that was specifically discussed in the book but more the theme of the entire book; one that we discussed in class, “Ends justify the means” and do whatever it takes to get the job done. After discussing this I realize how many perceive Machiavelli as evil seeing as this can be a drastic measure where as not only one’s subjects but the entire world can hate him for. The “ends” are what kind of society we want and the “means” are how we are going to get there. Examples of presidents who have lied to the people to get things done such as Watergate, was only for the better good and is exactly what Machiavelli means by the ends justifying the means, the ends are what kind of society we want and the means how will we get there. This is the biggest advice to give; by following this rule it will either make or break the President because it will give him the power to do whatever he must to better society, which is the important key, to better society.

Bomb Iran?

We all know that terrorism has been at high risk the past few years post the 9/11 attacks but there is a huge difference between paranoid and plain stupid. I do not completely agree with either side but I do agree with some main points of Edward Luttwak in saying not to bomb Iran yet. Mario Loyola makes his main point around getting rid of potential danger to keep ourselves safe and that Iran is moving fast and will become more assertive and aggressive as time goes on. He gives no proof there is intention for Iran to harm us and he wants the U.S. to bomb another country based on suspicion, look where that got us last time.
Luttwak definitely has the better argument in this issue mostly because he goes into great depth on his side as to why we should wait to bomb Iran. He makes a good point when talking about how Iran cannot even drill their own oil which leads us to think what they can really even be capable of. Luttwak isn’t completely against the bombing, but he does believe we should wait and see what happens before we go and step our big foot in the door again. “For the long-term consequences of any American military action cannot be disregarded. Iranians are our once and future allies.” This passage makes reference to another reason we will be hated as a country if we were to go and bomb another country in the Middle East as if we weren’t in deep enough. I believe we should lay low for a while and if the time comes where we absolutely have to take military action there is no doubt in my mind we will which may or may not be the best but only time will reveal what lies ahead.

The Prince

After reading I don’t see how Machiavelli would be associated with “evil”, I didn’t think there was evil to this book; it seems just informational about the different type of Princedoms and what it takes to be prince. The only “evil I could find after thinking of the theme evil in every possible way is thinking of evil metaphorically. “For since men who are well treated by one whom they expected to treat them ill, feel the more beholden to their benefactor, the people will at once become better disposed to such a Prince when he protects them, than if he owed his Princedom to them” (Pg/25). When I reread over this passage I thought of the “evil” in politics; sort of the “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” theory, doing deeds for one another behind closed doors.
Today it is almost obvious to anyone to see how corrupt and devious politics are these days and the passage mentioned before is a perfect example to the deceiving faces we see in high official offices. In another class we just talked about the conferences on the other night and how when they say they want our money to aid education there was a good point brought up, “how can money get Tony to do his homework every night?” well it really can’t. So what can we be sure of when we give our money to politicians for education, it’s near impossible to say the money is really going to help education for kids.

Heart of Darkness

When we talk about nature vs. nuture we would bring up the question if man is born good/evil or if he is taught by society to be good/evil. "Heart of Darkness" is a title that jumps out at the reader and right away we can make the observation that the book is about the evil in man that is either born or molded into us by society. Looking at Kurtz and because he was brought up by the natives through most of the time in the Congo he was uncivilized and protective of the natives. This was the nuture of Kurtz because it was how the society around him lived. His nature is easy to tell it was the way he survived in the Congo; just like "White Fang" Kurtz was used to a society's life style, but when it came to survival his instinct was what guided him instead of what he learned from society. Another example is when Kurtz went on the steam ship and he was so anxious while aboard the boat because he felt the manager of the ship was going to somehow take away his credibility with company or in other words the ahhh factor the company has for the mysterious Kurtz. His need for power is another example of the nature of Kurtz. "He died as he lived. His end was in every way worthy of his life." (Pg/71)

2nd Grading Period

The most valuable topic we went over this past grading period to me was when we were studying the “Dialogues of Plato”. I learned a little bit more on how much knowledge comes from never ending questions and making sure I look at all sides of each small situation or problem. It will defiantly help me academically and personally in the future because I think it helps being able to solve all sorts of problems academic or personal. I think it will help in school because the unlimited amount of papers I will have to write will be a little easier after I use what we call the “Socratic Method” and take every view of the topic to be able to write more clearly. I do it now with my papers and it has helped a lot. I think it will be useful in relationship if there is a problem and looking at their point of view and not only mine. The “Socratic Method” is kind of what I believe to be the main topic or idea behind our class; talking things out and learning the history and taking a side after hearing each, it is what I like most about the class for sure.

Broken Promises

"The question is whether such flaws can be mended through reform or are so deeply embedded that the time has come for the United States to withdraw rather than waste time in a futile attempt a proverbial silk purse out of what from its inception was a sow’s ear.”

Once I found out what this quote was talking about when it said a silk purse and a sow’s ear I thought it was the perfect way to explain my feelings and thoughts on the UN. When Eleanor Roosevelt declared the movement of “Human Right” on December 10, 1948 the United Nations was meant to be a huge human rights activist group to bring world peace. Well that is what I would call the fancy silk purse. The sow’s ear is what I see the UN really is, a hypocritical group that is nothing but a waste of time and money. As I saw in the documentary and the movie we watched last week the UN would be sent to places like Rwanda and Bosnia to help keep peace but then just outside the “gates” of the UN people were dropping like flies and the UN would just turn their heads. There are countries that are apart of the UN such as Cuba who are total hypocrites and do not believe in the human rights that the UN stands for. When I think of the UN I think of a kid who talks the talk but cant walk the walk. They say they are a huge deal but really when you take time to look at what they do there isn’t much at all. Why waste money being part of a group that hasn’t really been a great success and doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere soon, I think we should definitely withdraw.