My first post

While I'm in the mood, I'd like to refer back to my first posting. It has, for some reason or another, become an object of discussion here as well as on my actual post. Not that I really mind, I like attention, but I feel like it deserves some more explanation.


The most controversial line in that posting was, "I don't think that I'll ever have a government that reads my thoughts or has a telescreen with the ability to hear and see my every move, but just the idea is pretty strange."


I had 3 people tell me that they agreed with my post, but I'm not really addressing their comments here, I'd rather explain myself to those who don't understand.


Personally, I think that it comes down to politics; whether or not you agree with our government's phone-tapping. I believe that, in order to protect its citizens, our country has the right to intrude on some of our freedoms. Mr. Burell suggested that I search for, " domestic surveillance wiretapping Bush" while Teddy said, "What I do not completely agree with Bekah on is when she says, 'I don't think that I'll ever have a government that reads my thoughts or has a telescreen with the ability to hear and see my every move, but just the idea is pretty strange.' I do not agree with this completely because our own president of the United States of America is allowing people to listen into our own conversation on the phone, computer, etc." It seems that others are concerned that our country will overstep its boundaries, and although it was trying to protect us at first, it will enjoy its control and begin to abuse its power---->if my analysis of others (which may mean you) is completely off, please feel free to let me know.



I also think you're probably watching too much CNN if you think that the government can listen to anybody's phone calls. Unless you're making phone calls outside of the country, the government cannot, in fact, listen to your phone conversations. I did a tiny bit of research and found a BBC News article about Bush defending wire-tapping, "Mr Bush emphasised that only international calls were monitored without a court order - those originating in the US, or those placed from overseas to individuals living in the US." Honestly, is that really so intrusive on our rights? Seriously, answer that question.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4542880.stm

Oh right, I'm suppossed to be discussing a book. George Orwell was trying to warn us of what we might become, but his warning was a bit extreme. Is it possible that our country in its current position could become that bad? I'd say no. Why? Well right now we have enough rights and our country doesn't have enough control over its citizens to put us in such a predicament. If you were to tell me that in 10 years our country could be like Winston's, then I'd believe you. It's not that I'm paranoid, but I think that 10 years is enough time for our leadership to change and enough brainwashing to occur for us to become like Oceania. As long as President Bush is in power, I believe that we have enough protection to keep us from such a situation. However, next year, elections are coming and, with some unpromising candidates, it's possible that our government could become so extreme (although I doubt it).

How?

How did things get to be so bad; how is it that an entire population is convinced that things are acceptable the way they are? Okay, I take that back...Winston isn't convinced that things are all right. Even if no one is convinced that their way of living is acceptable; why is it that no one is taking measures to change it?
I have a feeling that Winston is going to risk his life in order to fix the situation, but if he's not, then I'm quite confused as to why things are the way they are.
I guess my question can be answered by situations like the Jewish Haulocaust; gradual dystopianizement (a word of my own invention, obviously).
All I can say is, I hope this situation never develops in our world.

"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."

One of the questions in the 1984 packet inquired what the quote (pg. 35, part 1, chapter 3) meant. I, myself, am quite puzzled by George Orwell's words. What does the quote mean?" 'Who controls the past,' ran the party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' "
I'd easily say that no one can control the past, because the past is behind us...you can't change what's already happened. Also, upon first glance, I would say that the "who" described is non-existent.After some discussion with my teacher and some personal thought, I've found that my first impressions about this quote were all wrong; there is a "who" that can control the past/present/future.
First off, how do you change the past? Well, like in 1984, you can make it disappear; erase history. That brings the next question; how do you erase history? To erase history, you prevent people who don't know anything about it from ever finding out, and then you brainwash people possessing any personal recollections into believing whatever you want them to believe occurred in the past.
With that answered; why is it that the person that can control the past can control the future? How about an example?I
went to school yesterday. Now let's say that today, Joe Schmo tells me that I didn't go to school yesterday, but skipped school to go to Six Flags. If he can control the past by convincing me that I went to Six Flags; then couldn't he continue to do that every day, meaning that he controls the future? That's sort of hard to follow, but I can't think of an easier way to put it.
Unfortunately, there's still one more part: how is it that the person that can control the present can control the past? Well if you can control the past, you can control the future, and if you control the present you can control the past...confusing. I think that it's because the person can control the past that they can control the present and the future.
Strange/confused way of thinking, but I think I get it?
(ever wonder why there's a question mark after "bekah's thoughts"? Probably because sometimes I don't really even understand what I'm thinking)
Before anyone asks...I do realize that the "person" could be "people".

What does it mean to blog responsibly?

When blogging online, there are many risks to consider:
-offending others with personal views
-being offended by others' comments
-sharing too much personal information which can lead to
-abduction

Those first too concerns are the more legitamite of the 2. Although abduction is rare, it's possible. If you show pretty pictures of yourself and share your exact location with others...well then you're just dumb. When blogging, students aren't looking to be abducted, but it happens. In order to prevent extreme circumstances, keep blogs uninformative as far as personal information goes. Students should remember that ANYONE can see what they've written so they should choose their words carefully.
What rules do I think they should follow?
1. Never include any personal information about yourself (first names only, and no pictures)
2. Keep your information only about your school work
3. Write something somewhere on your blog indicating that it's for a class. (I haven't followed my own advice yet)

Written in response to:
http://millersenglish10.blogspot.com/

After reading a bit of 1984, I've begun to realize that I've never really read anything about dystopian societies. The whole idea of a dystopia is starting to disturb me. I chose 1984 because I was interested by the restrictions put over the citizens. Now that I have continued to read, the idea of being so carefully controlled by your government is weirding me out. I don't think that I'll ever have a government that reads my thoughts or has a telescreen with the ability to hear and see my every move, but just the idea is pretty strange.
I predict that in the course of the book, these ideas will become more severe; more restrictions will be created, and Winston will have even more trouble keeping his affairs private from the government.