The purpose of this week's discussion is twofold. Firstly, you'll begin to start thinking about the world you live in, and the world Winston lives in. Secondly, you'll learn how to focus a search by using specific keywords, or combinations of keywords. Consider using combinations of words rather than asking a question or typing a sentence.
- Search the Internet and find a legitimate newspaper, magazine, or scholarly article that deals with the reality (social or political) portrayed in 1984. Consider articles which deal with comparing aspects of our world with that of Orwell's dystopia.
- Once you've found an article, write a summary or response to the article. Your summary must follow the criteria set out for our class's blog.
- Copy and paste the original article after your summary / response. Be sure to include the URL underneath your copy of the article.
- NO DUPLICATED ARTICLES. ONE ARTICLE PER STUDENT.
Search Engines of noticeable consideration:
- Google - http://www.google.ca
- Google News - http://news.google.ca
- Google Scholar - http://scholar.google.ca
Search Engine tips:
- Read this amazing explanation http://www.google.ca/intl/en/help/basics.html#keywords
- Use keywords
- Use combinations of keywords
- Do not type sentences or questions
- Use quotations to force a word order
- Use the + sign to force a connection
- USE THE ADVANCED GOOGLE SEARCH
- 1984
- George Orwell
- Orwellian
5 comments:
This article was taken from The Washington Post's website.
Bush, Blair, EU Among Nominees for 2004 Nobel Peace Prize
The Associated Press
Sunday, February 1, 2004; 9:55 AM
OSLO, Norway -- President George Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the European Union were among known nominees for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize as the nomination deadline expired Sunday.
The five-member Norwegian awards committee, which keeps the names of candidates secret, accepts nominations postmarked by Feb. 1.
Last year there were a record 165 nominations for the prize, which went to Iranian lawyer and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi.
Even though the committee keeps the nomination list secret for 50 years, those making the nominations often announce their candidate.
Norwegian lawmaker Jan Simonsen of the right-wing Party of Progress has nominated Bush and Blair several years in a row, including this year.
Simonsen wrote that by removing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, they lessened the chance of a war using weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and laid the foundation for the development of democracy.
Norwegian experts, including Stein Toennesson, director of the Peace Research Institute-Oslo, last year gave Bush and Blair no chance of winning, mainly because a vast majority of Norwegians, including members of the awards committee, were deeply opposed to the war in Iraq.
Former Labor Party leader Thorbjoern Jagland, also a former Norwegian prime minister, nominated the European Union for ensuring peace and security in Europe.
Others believed to be nominated include Pope John Paul II, the Salvation Army and former Czech President Vaclev Havel.
The committee is appointed by but does not answer to Norway's parliament. It will announce its decision in mid-October.
The Nobel Prizes are always awarded Dec. 10, the anniversary of their creator Alfred Nobel's death. The peace prize is awarded in Oslo, and the other prizes in Stockholm, Sweden.
The prize includes a $1.35 million cash award.
© 2004 The Associated Press
URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2990-2004Feb1.html?nav=hptoc_w
This is article is taken from The Winnipeg Free Press availabe on EBSCO Student Research Center
The article focuses on the Chinese Internet filtering program. The author traces this new policy to the idea of Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984. It involves the censorship of blogs and personal web pages. The Chinese government will then have control over any content posted or published on the Internet by any Chinese citizen. Every thing from blogs, search engines, chat rooms and email will be monitored.
Companies like Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have the ability to implement that regime since they power most of the Internet. The questions remains that will there be in the near future a Big Brother, if there is not one already on the internet.
Giving Big Brother a helping hand
By Anne Applebaum
In 1949, when George Orwell wrote his dystopian novel 1984, he gave its hero, Winston Smith, a job at the Ministry of Truth. All day long, Winston clips politically unacceptable facts, stuffs them into little pneumatic tubes, and then pushes the tubes down a chute. Beside him sits a woman in charge of finding and erasing the names of people who have been "vaporized." And their office, Orwell wrote, "with its fifty workers or thereabouts, was only one sub-section, a single cell, as it were, in the huge complexity of the Records Department."
It's odd to read 1984 in 2005, because the politics of Orwell's vision aren't outdated. There are still plenty of governments in the world that go to extraordinary lengths to shape what their citizens read, think and say, just like Orwell's Big Brother. But the technology envisioned in 1984 is so -- well, 1980s. Paper? Pneumatic tubes? Workers in cubicles? Nowadays, none of that is necessary: It can all be done electronically, especially if, like the Chinese government, you seek the co-operation of large American companies.
Without question, China's Internet filtering regime is "the most sophisticated effort of its kind in the world," in the words of a recent report by Harvard Law School's Berkman Centre for Internet and Society. The system involves the censorship of Web logs, search engines, chat rooms and e-mail by "thousands of public and private personnel." It also involves Microsoft Inc., as Chinese bloggers discovered last month. Since early June, Chinese bloggers who post messages containing a forbidden word -- "Dalai Lama," for example, or "democracy" -- receive a warning: "This message contains a banned expression, please delete." It seems Microsoft has altered the Chinese version of its blog tool, MSN Spaces, at the behest of Chinese government. Bill Gates, so eloquent on the subject of African poverty, is less worried about Chinese free speech. But he isn't alone: Because Yahoo Inc. is one of several companies that have signed a "public pledge on self-discipline," a Yahoo search in China doesn't turn up all of the (politically sensitive) results. Cisco Systems Inc., another U.S. company, has also sold hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment to China, including technology that blocks traffic not only to banned Websites, but even to particular pages within an otherwise accessible site.
Until now, most of these companies have defended themselves on the grounds that there are
side benefits -- a Microsoft spokesman has said that "we're helping millions of people communicate, share stories, share photographs and build relationships" -- or on the grounds that they can't control technology anyway. A Cisco spokesman told me that this is the "same equipment technology that your local library uses to block pornography," and besides, "we're not doing anything illegal." But as U.S. companies become more deeply involved in China, and as technology itself progresses, those lines may begin to sound weaker. Over the past couple of years, Harry Wu, a Chinese human rights activist and former political prisoner, has carefully tracked Western corporate co-operation with Chinese police and internal security, and in particular with a Chinese project called "Golden Shield," a high-tech surveillance system that has been under construction for the past five years. Although the company won't confirm it, Mr. Wu says, Cisco representatives in China have told him that the company has contracts to provide technology to the police departments of at least 31 provinces. Some of that technology may be similar to what the writer and former businessman Ethan Gutmann describes in his recent book, Losing the New China: A Story of American Commerce, Desire and Betrayal. Mr. Gutmann -- whose account is also bitterly disputed by Cisco ("He's getting a lot of press out of this," complained the spokesman) -- claims to have visited a Shanghai trade fair where Cisco was advertising its ability to "integrate judicial networks, border security and vertical police networks" and more generally its willingness to build Golden Shield.
If this isn't illegal, maybe it should be. After the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, the United States passed a law prohibiting U.S. firms from selling "crime control and detection" equipment to the Chinese. But in 1989, the definition of police equipment ran to truncheons, handcuffs and riot gear. Has it been updated? We may soon find out: A few days ago, Indiana Republican Congressman Dan Burton of the House Foreign Relations Committee, wrote a letter to the Commerce Department asking exactly that. In any case, it's time to have this debate again. There could be other solutions -- such as flooding the Chinese Internet with filter-breaking technology.
Beyond legality, of course, there's morality. And here the judgment of history will prove more important than whatever Congress does or does not do today. Sixty years after the end of the Second World War, IBM is still battling lawsuits from plaintiffs who accuse the company of providing the "enabling technologies" that facilitated the Holocaust. Sixty years from now, will Microsoft, Cisco and Yahoo be doing the same?
Copyright of Winnipeg Free Press (MB)
URL: http://src2.epnet.com/detail?sid=4c212bba-e537-4509-b2ea-16e047778a3c%40SRCSM1&vid=39760411
This article was taken from the Common Dreams News Center Website. It is an article published on New York Times
This article is about censoring the anti- war painting, Guernica, by Pablo Picasso when United States declared War on Iraq. Secretary of state Collin Powell planned on throwing a blue cover on the painting during the declaration of the war in Iraq. Powell believes that by not covering the painting, the American government is trying to send a mixed message. This article also explained a brief history of censored artworks.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also briefly informed the media about the connection of Iraq and Al Qaeda. A warning from Bush Official’s also stated that Saddam Hussein is close to creating a nuclear bomb. The U.N also questions the credibity of the information retrieved by White House and the Pentagon in regards to Iraq. When President Bush wanted to express his opinion on Iraq, he would invite columnists to the White House. But he would only invite conservative columnists.
This article attacks Bush’s war campaign stating that by inviting columnist with the same ideology, it is like campaigning for a war only in states that had voted for him.
This article is very similar to the shocking elements exposed in George Orwell's 1984. By covering the anti-war painting of Picasso, it resembles the idea of controlling an art that warns us about the opposite idea of what someone is saying. In this case, the right of people to know the negative impacts of war are being taken away. The elimination of "the Book" is very similar to the act of coverign Guernica. The message of the book and the message of Guernica is being repressed. The purpose of these acts are to control people inorder to impose their ideologies.
In the second half of this article, Bush is trying to assume the activities done by the Iraqi government. Through the use of media, The Party had created an image of Goldstein as the enemy. This is also similar to how Bush portarys Saddam Hussein.
Powell Without Picasso
by Maureen Dowd
WASHINGTON -- When Colin Powell goes to the United Nations today to make his case for war with Saddam, the U.N. plans to throw a blue cover over Picasso's antiwar masterpiece, "Guernica."
Too much of a mixed message, diplomats say. As final preparations for the secretary's presentation were being made last night, a U.N. spokesman explained, "Tomorrow it will be covered and we will put the Security Council flags in front of it."
Mr. Powell can't very well seduce the world into bombing Iraq surrounded on camera by shrieking and mutilated women, men, children, bulls and horses.
Reporters and cameras will stake out the secretary of state at the entrance of the U.N. Security Council, where the tapestry reproduction of "Guernica," contributed by Nelson Rockefeller, hangs.
The U.N. began covering the tapestry last week after getting nervous that Hans Blix's head would end up on TV next to a screaming horse head.
(Maybe the U.N. was inspired by John Ashcroft's throwing a blue cover over the "Spirit of Justice" statue last year, after her naked marble breast hovered over his head during a televised terrorism briefing.)
Nelson Rockefeller himself started the tradition of covering up art donated by Nelson Rockefeller when he sandblasted Diego Rivera's mural in the RCA Building in 1933 because it included a portrait of Lenin. (Rivera later took his revenge, reproducing the mural for display in Mexico City, but adding to it a portrait of John D. Rockefeller Jr. drinking a martini with a group of "painted ladies.")
There has been too much sandblasting in Washington lately.
After leading the charge for months that there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld chastised the media yesterday for expecting dramatic, explicit evidence from Mr. Powell. "The fixation on a smoking gun is fascinating to me," he said impatiently, adding: "You all . . . have been watching `L.A. Law' or something too much."
The administration's argument for war has shifted in a dizzying Cubist cascade over the last months. Last summer, Bush officials warned that Saddam was close to building nuclear bombs. Now, with intelligence on aluminum tubes, once deemed proof of an Iraqi nuclear program, in dispute, the administration's emphasis has tacked back to germ and chemical weapons. With no proof that Saddam has given weapons to terrorists, another once-crucial part of the case for going to war, Mr. Rumsfeld and others now frame their casus belli prospectively: that we must get rid of Saddam because he will soon become the gulf's leading weapons supplier to terrorists.
Secretary Powell was huddling on the evidence in New York yesterday with the C.I.A. director, George Tenet. Mr. Tenet was there to make sure nothing too sensitive was revealed at the U.N., but mainly to lend credibility to Mr. Powell's brief, since there have been many reports that the intelligence agency has been skeptical about some of the Pentagon and White House claims on Iraq. It was Mr. Tenet who warned Congress in a letter last fall that there was only one circumstance in which the U.S. need worry about Iraq sharing weapons with terrorists: if Washington attacked Saddam.
When Mr. Bush wanted to sway opinion on Iraq before his State of the Union speech last week, he invited columnists to the White House. But he invited only conservative columnists, who went from gushing about the president to gushing more about the president.
The columnists did not use Mr. Bush's name, writing about him as "a senior administration official," even though the White House had announced the meeting in advance.
They quoted "the official" about the president's determination on war. That's just silly.
Calling in only like-minded journalists is like campaigning for a war only in the red states that Mr. Bush won in 2000, and not the blue states won by Al Gore.
When France and Germany acted skeptical, Mr. Rumsfeld simply booted them out of modern Europe, creating a pro-Bush red part of the European map (led by Poland, Italy and Britain) and the left-behind blue of "old Europe."
When the evidence is not black and white, the president must persuade everyone. There is no red and blue. There is just red, white and blue.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0205-03.htm
This article was taken from the CTV website
Pierre Berton: Cats I Have Known and Loved
In the beginning of this article it discusses Berton’s love for cats, which has no reference to George Orwell. After reading the whole article Berton makes a textual reference to Orwell’s novel 1984, which I personally agreed too.
Berton who normally writes books about the history behind wars, made a comment in this article about the war occurring in Iraq. He sees the war as being a political device to get votes and is not like any other historic war because this is a never ending, continues state of war. This relates directly to the concept of George Orwell’s novel 1984. The Main character Winston is appalled with how oppressed life is and secretly wants to join the brotherhood, which wants to over take the government.
This relates to the war in Iraq today because the United States government is oppressing the Iraq government and is attempting to show who is bigger and better. In trying to do this they are oppressing the people of Iraq, since they are a weaker country.
This continual state of war is all brought out for political reasons; parties want to gain the respect from the people in their country, so they put an image in their minds saying “this is bad and were going to fix this, so elect us”. After the population hears this they want the bad to be fixed but they do not truly understand the real reason why the war is happening, if there is a reason at all.
This relates to the state of Oceania by the Big Brother putting out an image on the telescreens to provoke the country into thinking what is happening is what needs to be done.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20021028/pierre_berton_cats_021024/20021028/
Post a Comment