More Censorship Equals Less Learning

Censorship is to present-day society as "newspeak" is to 1984. Both exist for the purpose of improving society; however, both have proven detrimental to the intellect of society's inhabitants. "Thin Gruel" sums up the conflicts that have occurred regarding censorship (in literature especially), the reasons behind the conflicts, and it shows effectively just how harmful censorship can be when taken too far.
Censorship in literature, as discussed in the article, has been the result of right-wing arguments concerning religion and morality, and left-wing arguments concerning mostly sexism and racism. Those on the "right" side worked feverishly throughout the '70s and '80s to ban readings in school that were secular or that did not teach both sides, that promoted disobedience, and that discussed sexually immoral behavior. To help clarify the "right argument," the article states, "...parents criticized the books' treatment of profanity, sex, religion, race, or violence. On the "left side," individuals worked feverishly and analyzed texts in order to ensure that neither party was portrayed unfairly. For example, a text was "evaluated against a checklist that measured whether it was racist, sexist, elitist, materialist, ageist, conformist, escapist, or individualist."
Both arguments prompted text publishers to over-analyze their works in order that neither party was offended; overanalyzing ensured that a company stayed in business and that it would not be sued. Taking care not to offend a specific party is important, but how far is too far? Why should a piece about someone who lives in a location unfamiliar to the reader be censored? And what sort of person would be offended if he or she saw the word "gum" in a text?
All in all, censorship detracts from the reader's experience and does not give him or her a chance to explore controversy or the unknown. If publishers continue to whittle away at the texts, or to eliminate them completely, what will be left to learn? One must keep this in mind: Just because something is not in the text does not mean it is nonexistent. Yes, eliminate racism, etc. No, do not eliminate substance that prompts learning and enjoyment. As Holt editors observed, "...notes show that discussion of literary quality, pedagogical effectiveness, and interest level steadily diminished."
1984 and 2009 both struggle with censorship issues because they care about the wellbeing of their people. However, censorship halts the learning process so that all that is left for students to read is "thin gruel."

Newspeak: 1984

The concept of "newspeak" in 1984 is one that involves the elimination of "unnecessary" words for the purpose of eradicating the thoughts that usually accompany those words. It all comes down to fear. Because language has been downsized, eventually people will have no memory of the old words. And because of this, if one is feeling a certain way, there is no longer a word to express the feeling. Controlling language in this way leads people to think that their feelings are not justified or real. If words do not exist for an action, one is unable to perform the action. If words do not exist for a thought or concept, one is unable to think about complex matters. Elimination of words ultimately puts all control into the Thought Police's, and the Party's, hands because people are less able to rebel or to challenge authority.
Although I can think of no individual or group who has attempted to eliminate all connotations of words, I can think of some instances in which language has been "minimized." First of all, language has naturally downsized since the nineteenth century. Poetry that could be easily understood then is no longer as easily understood now because certain words are not commonly used in today's society. Second of all, rappers and other "hip" celebrities have succeeded in getting many people to use slang words in place of more elaborate and classy words. This minimizes one's language in that these slang words have so many connotations that one can use them in a multitude of situations. Because of this, many other words are believed to be no longer cool or necessary to convey a message. 1984's concept of "newspeak" may not be much of a reality in our society; however, influencial figures unknowingly encourage this concept at times.

Cloning: Playing God

I do not agree with the concept of cloning at all. As was mentioned in the video by people who are anti-cloning (most often people with strong religious beliefs), to clone is to play God. Some argue that therapeutic cloning, as discussed in the video, can come in handy when one needs an organ transplant. Or there is the continual argument that "skin cells are not living beings, therefore we are not ending lives." But just because we have the technology to do something does not mean we should. "Playing God" may help people to have healthy children, but when people start manipulating features of those healthy children it becomes dangerous. As was mentioned in both the video and the article, people choosing genes for their children (possibly clones of themselves) is dangerous because our society may end up with a lack of diversity. A genocide may even occur due to the stark contrast in groups of genetically engineered "individuals." Yes, cloning may help to a certain degree, but to clone is to meddle with a concept that was never meant to be meddled with. I'm not sure how I feel about stem cells being lives, but I do know that if we clone in any way, it may get out of hand. How would one feel if our society was full of blond-haired, blue-eyed people who all lacked something special that nature would have given them had they not manipulated it? If a parent manipulates genes or clones, they may produce the most handsome boy in the world, but what if he had been able to cure cancer had they not manipulated his genes? As the video discusses, all cloning does is turn people into products. If cloning is not stopped, who knows how far we will go and how much damage we will inflict upon ourselves. And at that point it may be too late; Nature will have "engineered" a plan of its own by then.

Customary Class Conflicts: Elimination or Acceptance?

Karl Marx thought that class conflict is inevitable in a capitalist society; capitalists strive to protect capitalism and to oppress the lower classes for maximum profit and workers struggle to abolish capitalism due to the fact that they are manipulated against their own best interests. Before reading the article on Karl Marx, I had never quite looked at capitalists and workers in this way. I definitely agree that conflict is inevitable due to stark differences in needs between both classes. Capitalists are so hungry for profit that they do not tend to notice those whom they are taking advantage of. And workers are busy despising capitalists for treating them like machines. This gap just continues to widen until a happy medium is no longer feasible. Unhappiness, as is apparent in capitalism, is the predecessor for conflict.
The World State's view of class in Brave New World is directly correlated to Karl Marx's point of view. In Brave New World, people are conditioned before birth to belong to a certain class level in society, and they are conditioned to genuinely appreciate their role. By subjecting "people" early on to certain stresses that will need to be tolerated later on in life, they become much more comfortable and successful under these stresses. In addition, people in each class must listen to recordings while they sleep that tell them what to believe and what to feel. This conditioning is all carried out in order to prevent the class conflict that would inevitably occur if people were unhappy with their "ranking."

Health Care: Universally Important

After watching Sicko, Dead Meat, and reading "Michael Moore and the Beige Bomber," I have come to believe that the United States has a corrupt and destructive health care system that must be fixed or replaced in order to preserve the health, and even sanity, of our nation and its people. Although Michael Moore presents an excellent argument in Sicko, providing examples of how universal health care has prevailed in France and other countries in Europe, it may be best to work on reform, as the "Beige Bomber" article argues. Yes, no one is required to pay for health care in France, yet taxes are extremely high for other things. And in China, where free universal health care reigns, doctors and hospitals are sliding into the pit of debt. In addition, places such as Canada have dangerously long waiting lists for medical procedures just because they have a "universal system." There is usually a silver lining to every cloud, but one must not forget the cloud itself. In all aforementioned cases, the cloud is comprised of long waits, debt, and high taxes. This should logically bring one to the conclusion that our health care system needs to be reformed. As Sicko shows, an American, or any person for that matter, should not be denied health insurance based on a preexisting condition, he or she should not have to move in with children because of medical debts, and no one should have to die because of these decisions. The deaths that do occur occur because health insurance companies want to make maximum profit. And essentially killing others for profit is so anti-American that it can make one "sick." The best thing for our country to do is to reform our health care system (completely abolishing it will only cause more problems). The most important lesson, in the bigger scheme of things, that we can learn from those countries with universal health care is not universal health care in itself but rather the not-for-profit care that they provide their citizens. That is the best health care of all.

Slumdog Millionaire

One's surroundings play a large role in determining how one evolves as a person and how one "ends up" in the end. In Slumdog Millionaire, Jamal and Salim are both largely influenced by their surroundings in the slum. Especially after their mother was killed right in front of them, they were forced to use whatever means possible to fend for themselves. They had to steal in order to eat, and they slept in low-down places. School, when compared with survival, was not a top priority. They used primitive instincts in order to live. Although Jamal and Salim both turned out very differently, they were both influenced, or shaped, by their childhood. Salim, overly affected by previously having to use violence and corruption to survive, worked for the very person who oppressed his family when he was younger in order to secure his place in society and to ensure his survival. He adapted his actions to his environment. Jamal, on the other hand, used everything that had affected him and everything he had learned on the streets and in his life in order to win "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire." In the same way that this knowledge from Jamal's past made him destined to win, it also shaped his continuous search, and eventual reunion, with Latika. If both Salim had Jamal had not been "molded" from their past, then they would not have been in the situations, or lives, that they ultimately ended up in.

Machiavellian Advice for the President

Due to the many differences and circumstances between our present-day society and the time in which Machiavelli lived, I believe that many of Machiavelli's lessons should be avoided rather than followed in order to serve our country's best interests. First of all, I would advise President Obama to not be the first to instigate a war between countries. With so many extremist political countries overseas (ex. Iran), we may find ourselves in some form of a nuclear weapons war. In addition, there is already plenty of anti-Americanism abroad due to Bush's presidential decisions involving occupation of Iraq and so forth. Why would we want to give anyone a reason to dislike America more or to think that we find ourselves superior to them? In today's society, war may not be inevitable. Second of all, I would tell Obama to not be like a "lion and a fox (at least not completely)." At times it is necessary to be aggressive and proactive, but it is not necessary to use such brute force that one is basically hated (again the invasion of Iraq comes to mind). I do understand that a soft nature can be taken advantage of, however. As far as deception is concerned, one should stay far away unless it concerns something that does not directly affect the people. There are things that are basically none of the peoples' business; however, if the President is to lie about numerous things, it will not promote any kind of trust between the people and himself. And it is important for the President, of all people, to be trusted and well-liked. Third of all, the President should try to avoid making any decisions that oppress any group of people. Machiavelli often says that a prince should choose the lesser of two evils, which makes sense if one is in such a predicament; however, he also says that a prince should pay no mind to hurting, offending, or oppressing small or poor groups of people. If the President were to do this, then our country would be flooded with chaos and rebellion. We have certain laws to protect minorities that did not exist in Machiavelli's time. So not only would Obama be involved in a serious legal issue, but he would also be looked upon as being cruel and as misrepresenting our country's true ideals. Machiavelli's advice would definitely not be the best for Obama to follow given our present situation, both foreign and domestic.