Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Buy cheap reports 1984 george orwell essays best practices

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Buy cheap reports 1984 george orwell essays best practices

    Buy cheap reports 1984 george orwell essays best practices






    Click here: Buy cheap reports 1984 george orwell essays best practices














































    Apart from a visit to Jura in the new year he stayed in London for one of the coldest British winters on record and with such a national shortage of fuel that he burnt his furniture and his child's toys. Cyril Connolly provides an account of Blair as a child in. I Am Spain: The Spanish Civil War and the Men and Women who went to Fight Fascism.


    You were abolished, annihilated: VAPORIZED was the usual word. Once the May fighting was over, he was approached by a Communist friend who met if he still intended transferring to the International Brigades. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. They did not discuss the possibility of getting married. The paradox of George Orwell. At seventeen he had been a district organizer of the Glad Anti-Sex League. Apart from a visit to Jura in the new year he stayed in London for one of the coldest British winters on record and with such a national shortage of fuel that he burnt his furniture and his child's toys. The subsequent campaign of lies and distortion carried out by the Communist press, in which the POUM was accused of collaborating with the fascists, had a dramatic effect on Orwell. Web beacons are generally invisible because they are very small only 1-by-1 pixel and the same color as the background of the web page or e-mail message. He studied at Eton until December 1921, when he left at age 18½. One of his former pupils recalled so hard he could not sit down for a week.

    Orwells 1984 Compared To Nazi Germany - The Orwells set out in September 1938 via and to avoid and arrived at.

    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. Be sure to include the URL underneath your copy of the article. ONE ARTICLE PER STUDENT. Reserve your article by posting a comment to this thread, and state the URL, article title and author. Search Engines of noticeable consideration: Google - Google News - Google Scholar - Search Engine tips: Read this amazing explanation 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 Keywords I didn't think that I needed to do this, but given the responces... Authoritarianism is favouring complete compliance or helplessness to authority as opposed to our individual freedom. His actions, his expressions and even his own thoughts can be used against him as a form of treason. Winston even finds himself in love and neglecting a very human feeling because he is unable to divorce from his former wife or even enjoy sexual intercourse with women. Paulson wants to see where the line that divides fair government laws and totally unjustified policies can be found. Our living is far from that in 1984 but with technology increasing, we could find ourselves in a scary world. I disagree that the society I live in has become deprived of freedom, but our privacy has for sure been broken into increasingly over the years. Where will it stop? When will it be illegal for telemarketers to know what we like to spend our money on? Are we slowly, but surely approaching a world of no freedom? Some laws that Paulson has looked into that the U. S government has allowed to be put in place that question citizens privacy and freedom are laws such as the USA-PATRIOT act, the Military Commissions act and the removal of Habeas Corpus. The Military Commissions act was just passed in 2006 and Paulson refers to an Anthony D. Habeas corpus is what allows the accused to question detainment by the government, without the ability to challenge this — victims are helpless. It is quite obvious some laws that have been put into place contradict main constitutions set down decades ago. When the government is able to listen in on our private phone calls and they are able to stop victims from challenging, we are slowly losing more and more of our freedom which some people in our society fought for, and what we are rightful to have. Where is this line? We know the line exists, but when do we start making it precedence to stop ignoring this line? The government will only make their country more unsafe if they continue to take freedom and privacy away from its citizens. This is a world where authoritarianism is absolute and the word liberty has been taken out of the dictionary. There have been a number of laws that have pushed us several miles down the road of authoritarianism in recent years. The USA-PATRIOT Act of 2003 allows the government to sneak into your house and look around without even telling you for a criminal investigation, to view your library records and a number of other things. We were informed that the executive branch unilaterally began monitoring phone calls domestically for purposes of security late last year. Additionally, the National Security Agency was allowed to create a massive database of information about telephone calls. Major telecommunications companies handed millions of telephone records to this program without objection. Under a declaration of emergency, the executive branch has been tapping into a vast database of financial records that were supposed to be confidential and they have been doing this for the last five years. At this camp there were three suicides and numerous allegation of mistreatment. This went on for five years until the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan V. Rumsfield that the military tribunal were unlawful and many of the prisoners were transferred to other sites for trial. The sliver of hope that we had turned around on the march toward authoritarianism was quickly forgotten after Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Without having the fundamental right to challenge detainment by the government, what do we have left? What good does freedom of speech, press and religion have when we are sitting in a cell at gun point? We have to make protecting liberties a major priority or soon the government will be a greater threat to our freedom than any one outside this country that wishes to harm us. In the book Surveillance and Security: Technological Politics and Power in Everyday Life Torin Monahan provides an example of public views on surveillance. Sserunkuma and Monahan both feel the public deserve the right to be able to walk in the streets without being monitored. The only flaw with this argument is that when a person is, for example, walking down the street, they are not in the privacy of their own home but are in public and therefore take the risk of being seen by anybody whether they are three metres away or 500 kilometres away watching from the television screen. The minute you step out of your door you consent to having others see you and, if they choose to, watch your every move. Although the removal or banishment of such public surveillance tools would provide more privacy, it would take away both innovative technology like GPS as well as security and protection provided by security cameras. The topic of security ties back into the argument of whether law and order is a reasonable excuse for observing public places. The question is whether or not this invasion of privacy is justified by an attempt to weed out terrorists. Data is constantly being gathered about you while in the public eye and more often than not, valid reasoning is not provided. This collection of data is a constant part of the world happening every time a phone call is made or a picture is taken. Most people live out their lives in a state of bliss, not realizing that at any given time they may be within range of a microphone, having their picture taken, or simply being watched. The cameras in Kampala may not be hidden but that does not mean all cameras are in plain sight. Some may be disguised or perhaps too small for anyone to be aware of. Private companies who are paid large amounts of money to collect data for other companies or individuals are capable of using many different methods to get what they need. Your privacy to them is a job and their intention is to make your private life public, most likely without your knowledge. Telescreens are a way of controlling thoughtcrime and is no different than security cameras being used in Kampala to control crime. The general population is constantly being watched depriving them of freedom and the ability to exist with any sense of true privacy. It is a method of control employed to ensure the stated rules or laws are being upheld and that nobody is free from the long arm of the law. Cameras exist in schools, stores, street corners, and apartment buildings, watching us at any given moment and we simply dismiss it as a precaution meant for watching others who break the rules. It does not matter whether we are the ones the cameras were originally intended for because either way we are being spied on. Sserunkuma, being a consumer rights activist, is concerned with the overall risk someone undertakes when they do something as simple as buy groceries. He believes the right to privacy is removed the moment information regarding a purchase is available to an outside source. Hidden behind a picture perhaps? Article: Uganda: Chogm Cameras Heighten Suspicion The Monitor Kampala OPINION 30 October 2007 Posted to the web 29 October 2007 Shaban Sserunkuma FOR those who have shopped at supermarkets, or at dismal retail stores that have hijacked the title, being under the watch of a closed circuit television camera is nothing new. Perhaps, it is because consumers feel the men and women watching them on miniature screens are interesting in catching thieves and robbers. Things have since changed. Many who work or often move through Kampala's metropolis are not comfortable anymore; now that similar cameras have been installed round street corners to watch every move you make, ahead of the much-touted Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Chogm. Much the same thing you hear from supporting 'faces' of the so-called 'war on terror. It is a mixed story. Yet, if you thought about it critically, does anybody living a 'modern' lifestyle really think they have any privacy worthy talking about? Think about the mobile phone: your call data can be obtained very easily, in the process helping trace geographical locations you have been to. For instance, if you slipped out of town and drove to, say Jinja, but while there you received or made a call off your mobile, someone who accesses your call history will know. The world of espionage would get your hairs standing. The work of security private spying agencies is a catalogue of privacy turned inside-out on payment of hefty contract sums of money. Then there is the often ignored but significant world of amateur and adventurous gadget owners. There are thousands of mobile phones with multimedia capabilities -still and motion picture cameras, sound recorders and real-time internet connections for instant data streaming in the hands of people who would easily trade your privacy for the fun of it. How about the places we have become familiar with but that could be offensive to our privacy? Many of the hotels, restaurants and buildings we visit are mounted with cameras but we don't seem to care. The traffic and criminal investigations departments of police normally use still and motion picture cameras to gather evidence in the field and our pictures end up in their hands, many times without our knowledge. And that is not all. Is your bank data safe? Because it's stored in a 'secure' computer database doesn't mean it cannot be accessed. These things have happened before and will go on forever. Related to this in terms of its hi-tech nature are cars mounted with satellite-monitored or navigation technology that uses the global positioning satellite system GPS. Are you aware that a GPS-monitored chip could be secretly installed in your car and no one will need to follow you physically? Don't dismiss this as a James Bond movie scene. If you can afford paying Kampala-based CarTrack to keep a digital 'eye' on your car, anybody who wants you monitored can do the same. But that would pale in provoking consumer ire compared to the revolutionary but much-resisted radio-frequency identification technology being installed in super markets and on individual goods in the developed world. To industry, it is about tracking goods and logging customer-related data. But to consumers, it's about intrusion into a domain traditionally jealously guarded - your shopping list, how much you spend, discounts you enjoy and where you shop. They don't necessarily need to get your permission to do that. Chogm cameras, after considering the above, it would appear, should be much like an aftershock after a major earthquake. The novel by George Orwell 1984 was a genius book written of how the government can be, and how he portrays it. This depiction seems to be relating to our time, and reality. It seems that the government is controlling very much of our lives, but do we even notice it? Did we before we read 1984? Well, to be honest not so much. This concept gets people thinking how much is our life style controlled? The totalitarianism seems to be increasing; now it leaves us wondering if 1984 is going to become reality. As we all know in 1984 there is a never ending war to keep people controlled through fear. Well President Bush is also using that method of war, he affirmed a permanent war. Since he and his country have involved in so many warfare throughout many countries he has many dilemmas to deal with and solve, but solving such serious issues takes a while, and him saying there is a permanent war, who can object to that. In the article it says that George Bush has taken the role of Big Brother. It seems true as to how they both act and control their countries. Both different but alike, they have many similarities. Bush is very much like Big Brother, in many ways. The status of their countries, the control they have over the people, what they do, and even what they think. You may think its absurd that reality controls what man thinks but if you think deeper its true. For instance if you search something that is a threatening weapon of such linked to terrorism lets say a home made bomb, the government would detect that, and would be watching what you are doing and why you are looking at it, maybe because they think you are planning on an attack. They are taking extra caution or in other words totalitarianism. Article: Published on Saturday, September 22, 2001 by CommonDreams. In his address to Congress Thursday, George Bush effectively declared permanent war -- war without temporal or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Al-Qaida; tomorrow it may be Afghanistan; next year, it could be Iraq or Cuba or Chechnya. No one who was forced to read 1984 in high school could fail to hear a faint bell tinkling. In George Orwell's dreary classic, the totalitarian state of Oceania is perpetually at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia. Although the enemy changes periodically, the war is permanent; its true purpose is to control dissent and sustain dictatorship by nurturing popular fear and hatred. The permanent war undergirds every aspect of Big Brother's authoritarian program, excusing censorship, propaganda, secret police, and privation. In other words, it's terribly convenient. Bush's alarming speech pointed to a shadowy enemy that lurks in more 60 countries, including the US. He announced a policy of using maximum force against any individuals or nations he designates as our enemies, without color of international law, due process, or democratic debate. He explicitly warned that much of the war will be conducted in secret. He rejected negotiation as a tool of diplomacy. He announced starkly that any country that doesn't knuckle under to US demands will be regarded as an enemy. Meanwhile, his administration acted swiftly to realize the governing principles of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE. A reckless war that will likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation is being sold to us as the means to guarantee our safety. Meanwhile, we've been instructed to accept the permanent war as a fact of daily life. Americans are about to lose many of their most cherished liberties in a frenzy of paranoid legislation. The government proposes to tap our phones, read our email and seize our credit card records without court order. It seeks authority to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial. It proposes to use foreign agents to spy on American citizens. To save freedom, the warmongers intend to destroy it. Meanwhile, the sorry history of American imperialism -- collaboration with terrorists, bloody proxy wars against civilians, forcible replacement of democratic governments with corrupt dictatorships -- is strictly off-limits to mainstream media. Lest it weaken our resolve, we are not to be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying crimes of September 11. The defining speech of Bush's presidency points toward an Orwellian future of endless war, expedient lies, and ubiquitous social control. But unlike 1984's doomed protagonist, we've still got plenty of space to maneuver and plenty of ways to resist. It's time to speak and to act. It falls on us now to take to the streets, bearing a clear message for the warmongers: We don't love Big Brother. Security camera or eye spy? This idea is supposed to make the civilians feel safer and more secure. Many may think that this is exactly what the cameras do, but others do not tend to agree. In this novel the civilians are being watched constantly throughout the day with two-way televisions called telescreens. The leader of this country is called Big Brother. Big Brother is always watching you and they do not let you think, because thinking can be dangerous. The language that they speak is called newspeak, and their old language, which is called oldspeak, is slowly being dismembered. As a civilian in Oceania, you do not think or have emotions; you simply love nobody else but Big Brother. As if having a camera pinned at your back is not enough, the location is being monitored as well as your Internet time. If everyone lets fear stop them from questioning the government then the problem will build up and get increasingly worse. People have to question themselves of how much is too much, and start realizing that privacy is very valuable. If everyone started doing this then society would have a lot more privacy and everyone would feel a lot more comfortable in the one place they should; their own house. Article used: Across London, these posters can be seen telling us all that we are 'Secure beneath The Watchful Eyes' of the Metropolitan Police. I cannot tell you how much better that makes me feel. Britain is already a Police State in so far as the means for total repression are already well and truly in place. As the poster indicates all too well, Britain is the nation most under surveillance on Earth, Echelon monitors our domestic communications, our Internet usage is logged for years due to the Draconian RIP Act, our locations detected via our mobile phones and logged, all for the apparatus of state to access on very low level authority. Civilians are not just deprived of any firearms, in reality we are forbidden to defend ourselves and our property with so much as a broomstick. Our right to trial by Jury faces abridgement, even our ancient protection of Habeas Corpus is now a dead letter under European extradition laws. Yes, we still have a fairly free press, in so far as the media are strong enough to prevent restrictions against their actions... Is it any surprise that the powers that be feel they can dare put posters announcing that you are 'Secure beneath The Watchful Eyes'. Surveillance increases daily at the same times as crime soars out of control, so if we are not 'secure' from crime, then what exactly is being secured? We face many threats in the modern world but the biggest comes from the people who would watch our every action so that the State may choose to judge us when it sees fit. Every inhabitant is closely supervised, day and night, in order for the Party to maintain power over every single individual. However abstract this situation may sound, it is one that is becoming reality for the citizens of Britain. The article follows the deputy chief constable of Hampshire, Ian Redhead, as he expresses his concerns that his country may be headed into an Orwellian society. His concern is that if cameras are being used even in smaller villages, nothing will stop the government from having them at every street corner. Infact, Millward writes that there are approximately 4. It is even said that certain individuals are pushing for talking CCTV cameras that are capable of instructing civilians as they pass by. Although supporters avow that the cameras are strictly used for the prevention of crime, when it can almost be guaranteed every person will be caught on camera at least once a day, it starts to turn into an invasion of privacy. This, then, is what modern society is becoming. It is easy to assume that modern society could never be subjected to the dystopia displayed in 1984, but the moment individuals fail to stand up for their privacy and civil rights is the moment civilization falls under government. The only way to avoid an Orwellian society is to fight against it in its early stages. THE ARTICLE -------------------------------------------- CCTV creating 'Orwellian' society By David Millward Another senior police officer yesterday joined the growing clamour against the proliferation of CCTV cameras around the country. While also calling for a review of speed cameras and the policy to retain DNA, he questioned the need on BBC1's The Politics Show for CCTV in villages with low crime levels. In an interview in the East Anglian Daily Times, Colin Langham-Fitt, the acting chief constable for Suffolk, called for a debate on the erosion of civil liberties, asking if people really felt safer as a result of being monitored wherever they went. There are an estimated 4. Yet even the police are concerned that we are losing the value of privacy. This Government's obsession with new intrusive surveillance technologies and apparent indifference about our individual rights has demolished the ancient distinction between guilt and innocence. In Soham, Cambs, the council came under fire for failing to install extra cameras in the centre of town that could have provided vital information on the movements of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman before they disappeared. By the way George Bush carries out actions in the American government, there are signs that each of these five qualities could become stricter than they already are, and could become what they are in 1984. In 1984, the society is in a state of constant war so that the people are constantly driven by fear and hatred. America has been at war with Afghanistan for a long time now, and there is no foreseeable end to it. What began as a search for Osama Bin Laden has turned into a country-wide hate against Afghanistan. This anger fuels the people of America, the same way war does in 1984. False propaganda from the Ministry of Truth shaped the society of 1984. False propaganda from the American government also shapes their society. In 1984, history was falsified and was rewritten to erase any visible blemishes in the society. American government has begun showing signs that they are borrowing this idea from George Orwell. In 1984, Big Brother was to be worshiped. People were literally forced to love him, or they would be vaporized. George Bush is not as strong a leader as Big Brother, but he is still hungry for power. He gains power by ordering obedience from the people. This has been proven in a case at Ohio State, where Bush threatened people with arrest if they were to protest his speech. People in 1984 were constantly being watched and heard by many pieces of technology, such as telescreens and hidden microphones. If people are doing something wrong, saying something wrong, or even thinking something wrong, they were punishable by death. Airports, work buildings, and even restaurants are all equipped with surveillance cameras and microphones. Phone and internet conversations are also being spied on. The only place where people today are safe from being spied on is in the safety of their own homes. There is no doubt that the American government has followed the formula set by 1984. DTL Author: Daniel Kurtzman Title: Learning to love Big Brother Here's a question for constitutional scholars: Can a sitting president be charged with plagiarism? As President Bush wages his war against terrorism and moves to create a huge homeland security apparatus, he appears to be borrowing heavily, if not ripping off ideas outright, from George Orwell. It was intended to be read as a warning about the evils of totalitarianism -- not a how-to manual. Granted, we're a long way from resembling the kind of authoritarian state Orwell depicted, but some of the similarities are starting to get a bit eerie. The war took place largely in the abstract, but it served as a convenient vehicle to fuel hatred, nurture fear and justify the regime's autocratic practices. Bush's war against terrorism has become almost as amorphous. Although we are told the president's resolve is steady and the mission clear, we seem to know less and less about the enemy we are fighting. It is a practice that has become increasingly commonplace in the Bush White House, where presidential transcripts are routinely sanitized to remove the president's gaffes, accounts of intelligence warnings prior to Sept. The Bush administration has been surprisingly up front about its intentions of propagating falsehoods. In February, for example, the Pentagon announced a plan to create an Office of Strategic Influence to provide false news and information abroad to help manipulate public opinion and further its military objectives. Following a public outcry, the Pentagon said it would close the office -- news that would have sounded more convincing had it not come from a place that just announced it was planning to spread misinformation. INFALLIBLE LEADER An omnipresent and all-powerful leader, Big Brother commanded the total, unquestioning support of the people. He was both adored and feared, and no one dared speak out against him, lest they be met by the wrath of the state. President Bush may not be as menacing a figure, but he has hardly concealed his desire for greater powers. Never mind that he has mentioned -- on no fewer than three occasions -- how much easier things would be if he were dictator. By abandoning many of the checks and balances established in the Constitution to keep any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, Bush has already achieved the greatest expansion of executive powers since Nixon. His approval ratings remain remarkably high, and his minions have worked hard to cultivate an image of infallibility. Nowhere was that more apparent than during a recent commencement address Bush gave at Ohio State, where students were threatened with arrest and expulsion if they protested the speech. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING The ever-watchful eye of Big Brother kept constant tabs on the citizens of Orwell's totalitarian state, using two-way telescreens to monitor people's every move while simultaneously broadcasting party propaganda. While that technology may not have arrived yet, public video surveillance has become all the rage in law enforcement, with cameras being deployed everywhere from sporting events to public beaches. And thanks to the hastily passed USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department has sweeping new powers to monitor phone conversations, Internet usage, business transactions and library reading records. Best of all, law enforcement need not be burdened any longer with such inconveniences as probable cause. The Bush administration is not prosecuting thought crime yet, but members have been quick to question the patriotism of anyone who dares criticize their handling of the war on terrorism or homeland defense. Would it happen overnight, or would it involve a gradual erosion of freedoms with the people's consent? Because we are a nation at war -- as we are constantly reminded -- most Americans say they are willing to sacrifice many of our freedoms in return for the promise of greater security. We have been asked to put our blind faith in government and most of us have done so with patriotic fervor. But when the government abuses that trust and begins to stamp out the freedom of dissent that is the hallmark of a democratic society, can there be any turning back? Perhaps in time we all will, too. Orwellian Society One of the most frightening administrations to rule over a land is that of a totalitarian government. A totalitarian government is one that is controlled by a single party, which is maintained by political suppression. Funk and Wagnalls, Standard College Dictionary Totalitarianism involves absolute power over the state and the dehumanizing of the entire society. George Orwell creates a world in which totalitarianism is displayed in the modern world in his novel, 1984. The novel is a warning and prediction about the future governments that will, and have, ruled over society. Basic human rights and freedoms are slowly being taken away in the United States. This has become a reality in the United States as President George W. Bush has implemented the USA Patriot Act. This act allows the police to spy on citizens and immigrants by reading personal e-mails, tracking the amount of time one is on the Internet, and listening to private phone conversations. All of these acts can be done without ever presenting a search warrant. Brophy states that evidence is no longer required and that an individual may be arrested on utter suspicion. In the novel, an individual may be vaporized for such a felony, known as thoughtcrime. Basic human rights and freedoms are taken away to ensure political strength. A totalitarian government must keep its country blind and fearful, to an extent in which society has become ignorant to the truth. Journalists cannot witness the war overseas, and cannot interview any soldiers that have returned home. Control over government activity and media affairs has become an ordinary task, and such censorship laws have gone unnoticed. Orwellian society is similar. There is constant warfare against no specific country, as the war is fought merely to maintain governmental power. The party is able to control the past and they are capable of convincing the population of Oceania to believe that history never happened. It is obvious that the Bush administration attempts to do the same. Most individuals consider the United States as a superior country and is to be admired for fighting a war against terrorism. Through the removal of certain rights and freedoms, the censorship of governmental affairs and media coverage, and the apparent war against terrorism, George W. Bush brings Orwellian fictitious society into existence. However, the totalitarian government portrayed in the novel is not only experienced in the United States, but has, and is, occurring in many other parts of the world today. The unfortunate problem is that many citizens do not even realize that their so-called democratic country is slowly becoming a totalitarian state. Be wary: war is peace, ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery. ARTICLE Bush creates Orwellian society By Matthew Brophy Freedom is Slavery; War is Peace; Ignorance is Strength. Since the tragic Sept. Constitution and subordinating our civil rights in the name of national security. We are told that to protect freedom, we must forfeit our liberties. To have peace, we must fight a prolonged war. In short, to be good Americans we must believe in apparent contradictions and submit to our government entirely. Law enforcement no longer needs judicial oversight or probable cause. So, be careful: Big Brother is watching. Furthermore, this act states that citizens and non-citizens can be detained on mere suspicion. The charges against them remain undisclosed; even their names and identities remain largely unknown. The Bush administration admits these prisoners are not terrorists. So far, the FBI has racially profiled and interrogated more than 5,000 recent immigrants. This program asks mail deliverers, utility meter readers, truckers and other citizens to spy on their neighbors and customers, and report any suspicious activity that could be related to terrorism. A recent example of TIPS in action occurred just two weeks ago. Three men were detained, searched and interrogated for being overheard apparently joking about Sept. Bush and a federal law enforcement official in Washington eventually exculpated the men, reporting they had no evident ties to terrorism. Increasingly, it seems we must all be wary of saying or doing anything that could be construed as subversive; after all, your neighbor might turn you in to the thought police. The reach of the thought police has even extended to academia, where certain factions have attempted to stifle the free exchange of ideas. It seems that to be strong and united, we must silence all dissenting voices. The message is clear: To criticize America, right or wrong, is either to be unpatriotic or, worse, to be a terrorist sympathizer Does anyone smell McCarthyism yet? It seems ignorant patriotism has become a virtue. The Bush administration has heavily promoted the idea of ignorance as strength. On this basis, it is making sure the media and American public are kept ignorant. Invoking the excuse of national security, the Bush administration has imposed heavy restrictions on what we can know. For example, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security includes an exemption from the Freedom from Information Act. Additionally, the military has disallowed journalists from accompanying American forces fighting in Afghanistan and even from interviewing military personnel after their missions. In addition to this governmental censorship, the media has even censored itself. CNN Chairman Walter Isaacson, for instance, ordered his news staff to limit reports of Afghan casualties and to use World Trade Center deaths to justify the killing abroad. Furthermore, the largest U. Moreover, this war has been estimated to continue indefinitely current estimates say at least 10 years. I fear fear itself. Surely we must make some sacrifices in times of war, yet we must not sacrifice the very principles upon which the United States was founded. The novel 1984 written by George Orwell gives insight as to what would happen if a country was completely ruled by a totalitarian government. Bush has created for the Americans. When Orwell was young he, like many people today, was taught to always have his guard up, and to trust no one. He detested totalitarianism and anything similar to it. It seems that Orwell was able to see the future, as this is exactly what is still going on around the world, obviously not as extreme as 1984 was, but almost as close. Bush has carried these deceptions and absurdities to new heights. It is true then, that even the smallest insignificant things people do are being observed. Perhaps the security cameras at every corner? Yes, in fact almost everything people do is documented or recorded. The Canadian and American populations are being supervised at an all time high and the governments now have more information about the people who are living in their countries. Early in life he learned to be suspicious of authority and to hate empire while developing a compassion for the poor. In 1936 he joined the Spanish Civil War, like thousands of volunteers who joined the Lincoln Brigade to fight on the side of the republic against fascist Gen. Francisco Franco and his Falange Party. More than half of the volunteers died in battle. Orwell was injured and nearly died. Orwell rejected all forms of totalitarianism and dogma. He remained a lifelong democratic socialist with a passion for justice who detested both Stalin and Hitler. He advised writers to avoid euphemisms, metaphors and similes. Avoid long words and long sentences, he would say; try to communicate, not to confuse. Politicians often choose their language in an attempt to conceal reality. Their speeches are murky and often meaningless and absurd, but the obscurity is intentional. Freedom is a vague concept that is being overused in political speech. We tend to accept it in the abstract, but not when it comes to specific examples. Political propaganda speech has always been with us, especially during wars, but George W. Bush has carried these deceptions and absurdities to new heights. According to Bush, an increase in terrorism proves that they are desperate and we are winning. Security cameras are everywhere, hidden cameras take our picture when we run a red light and our government wants to know what books we buy and what books we read. Sneak-and-peek warrants allow FBI spies to break into our homes without our knowledge. Spying on Americans is at an all-time high. It seems his vision was more prophecy than fiction, even more relevant today than it was during his own time. As far as Orwell is concerned, it was only a matter of time before everything we do is monitored, including our thoughts and emotions. The idea of a telescreen in every room is slowly becoming a reality as people tend to have one, if not more than one television set in their home. Furthermore, the constant surveillance is becoming a reality in many different cities. In fact, currently in Britain, there are approximately 4. Currently in London, there are approximately 4. Cameras have been placed at every intersection, and even in places such as public parks. Additionally, some citizens are even placing cameras upon their own free will. An owner of a dry cleaner spent four hundred pounds on his two camera security system. He has to know exactly what is going on in his store at all times. The grocery store three doors down actually has three security cameras that monitor the whole store. Without them, people would steal from the shop. Although this is a nice area, there are always bad people who cause trouble by stealing. This is exactly what Orwell was stating in 1984. The war was constantly putting everybody in a state of fear, and everybody is being paranoid. Regardless of the fact that the neighborhood is safe, the grocery store owner feels safer because there are cameras to monitor everything. Though citizens seam to appreciate the increased surveillance, article also states the possible consequences of the increased amount of surveillance going on in London. Eventually, these cameras can be used as bribery, which would lead to more crime being covered up. The purpose of the cameras is to prevent crime, and to make those who want to commit crime think otherwise. This could rebound negatively as people would be getting personal gain out of the cameras, and the cameras would no longer serve their purpose. Furthermore, should there ever be a mass computer hacking, these cameras could be used for the work of organized crime. Should somebody hack into these cameras, they now are able to see all that is going on in London. For these reasons, the cameras could be used for negative purposes, but overall, it will be closely monitored. Looking beyond the article, people will assume that London is in a constant state of fear because of the increase in security cameras. Is it not the same as a regular surveillance system in any retail store? At any store you walk into now, the first thing you see normally is a camera monitoring the entrance or exit to the store. It is possible that George Orwell was right? We are constantly living in a state of fear and paranoia. The cameras are there as deterrents for crime, and will be used whenever necessary. This simply shows that we do live in a constant state of fear! Canadians do not have to worry, as this is never going to happen here. On the contrary, it is already happening. In another article, City TV news discusses the installation of cameras on every bus, streetcar, and bus stop that relates to the TTC. Of course, those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear. It is clear that George Orwell fairly accurately predicted what the future would be like. Wheather we notice it or not, we are always being watched by something. In the future, it may even be possible for the footage seen on these cameras to be publicly accessed. We can see evidence of this in the article from This Is London, and even in our everyday lives around us. The TTC is placing many cameras for safety reasons, as some drivers may be afraid to work without the protection of the camera. Similarly, citizens even feel safer working under monitored conditions, and ordinary retail stores all contain cameras. Like the telescreen, cameras, and microphones in 1984, the cameras of today will also be used to prevent crime. Unfortunately, such powers may be abused in the future, causing this ideology to become corrupt. Slowly though, our sense of freedom is slowing being taken away. Even if someone is not doing anything wrong, the thought of someone always watching you can simply be a deterrent for being human. If we are being watched, and do not act on our own thoughts and will, we become the dead. Article Used: George Orwell, Big Brother is watching your house 31. It may have taken a little longer than he predicted, but Orwell's vision of a society where cameras and computers spy on every person's movements is now here. According to the latest studies, Britain has a staggering 4. It has been calculated that each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily. Use of spy cameras in modern-day Britain is now a chilling mirror image of Orwell's fictional world, created in the post-war Forties in a fourth-floor flat overlooking Canonbury Square in Islington, North London. On the wall outside his former residence - flat number 27B - where Orwell lived until his death in 1950, an historical plaque commemorates the anti-authoritarian author. And within 200 yards of the flat, there are 32 CCTV cameras, scanning every move. Orwell's view of the tree-filled gardens outside the flat is under 24-hour surveillance from two cameras perched on traffic lights. The flat's rear windows are constantly viewed from two more security cameras outside a conference centre in Canonbury Place. In a lane, just off the square, close to Orwell's favourite pub, the Compton Arms, a camera at the rear of a car dealership records every person entering or leaving the pub. Within a 200-yard radius of the flat, there are another 28 CCTV cameras, together with hundreds of private, remote-controlled security cameras used to scrutinise visitors to homes, shops and offices. The message is reminiscent of a 1949 poster to mark the launch of Orwell's 1984: 'Big Brother is Watching You'. In the Shriji grocery store in Canonbury Place, three cameras focus on every person in the shop. Owner Minesh Amin explained: 'They are for our security and safety. Without them, people would steal from the shop. Although this is a nice area, there are always bad people who cause trouble by stealing. This week, the Royal Academy of Engineering RAE produced a report highlighting the astonishing numbers of CCTV cameras in the country and warned how such 'Big Brother tactics' could eventually put lives at risk. The RAE report warned any security system was 'vulnerable to abuse, including bribery of staff and computer hackers gaining access to it'. One of the report's authors, Professor Nigel Gilbert, claimed the numbers of CCTV cameras now being used is so vast that further installations should be stopped until the need for them is proven. One fear is a nationwide standard for CCTV cameras which would make it possible for all information gathered by individual cameras to be shared - and accessed by anyone with the means to do so. The RAE report follows a warning by the Government's Information Commissioner Richard Thomas that excessive use of CCTV and other information-gathering was 'creating a climate of suspicion'. David Goodman starts his article off by describing major political and war powerhouse countries of the new millennium. He these countries to those countries from the novel 1984. And uses sarcasm to describe the tactics used by the government in 1984, he describes the leader as having true goodness, and is unbiased. Big Brother is always watching you. But yet, Big Brother never appears in public, only on the telescreen. And the government creates such fear that anyone but a prole, is scared of their own thoughts. Oh, and the government is always watching you; through the telescreen or other people that are going to tell the thought police about you. This frightful image George Orwell creates in 1984 did come true. This act increased the United States ability to search telephone and e-mail communications and medical, financial and other records, allowed the US to gather more intelligence of foreign countries, and reduced rights of immigrants. This world George Orwell created in his novel is coming true 20 years after the name of his book. George Orwell wrote the book in 1948, and therefore was a play on words some speculate. Others believe that he named it in honor of The Fabian Society. Orwell was in this society and it was founded in 1884. Therefore he named it 100 years afterwards. The title of his book and the date of when it was published is irrelevant. What is important is that this revolution has begun, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it. The reason we cannot prevent it is because some critics believe this book is a joke. This ignorance will turn them into proles. ARTICLE: Orwell's 1984: the future is here: George Orwell believed the stark totalitarian society he described in 1984 actually would arrive by the year 2000, thanks to the slow, sinister influence of socialism - Special report: a commentary Insight on the News, Dec 31, 2001 by David Goodman Suppose someone 50 years ago had drawn a picture of the future that looked something like this: You live under the governance of an international alliance composed of a North American Union, China and Europe. Major powers are waging permanent low-level urban warfare. Rocket bombs soar over cities to crash into buildings. There are conflicts involving armies, but they are limited to border regions. Large banners fly downtown to celebrate victory over the nation's enemies. This is a totalitarian state under a benevolent leader in which citizens are detained and arrested on the merest suspicion of espionage. But the benevolent leader is seen only on television; he never appears in public. Personal surveillance is unceasing and relentless: TV cameras that receive and transmit simultaneously are everywhere. The political-correctness police listen in on every conversation to match speakers to the profile of a potential saboteur. Ordinary citizens live in constant fear of arrest and imprisonment for terrorist activities. It is the scenario of Orwell's book itself, written in 1948 and published in 1949. It is ironic that the character he calls Big Brother was not meant as a symbol for a U. What gives pause is that the book clearly satirizes the consequences of Fabian socialism exactly 100 years after its birth in the salons of London. If Orwell's totalitarian state seems to be arriving about 20 years late, it is not because he mistargeted the book by naming it 1984. A careful review of the literary evidence reveals that he was aiming at the period immediately following the year 2000 but wanted to memorialize the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Fabian Society. With Orwell's stark vision of a totalitarian society having for more than half a century sent shivers down the collective spine of the prestigious Western intelligentsia, one might assume in the roil of current events that scholars worldwide would be combing the pages of 1984 for triggering incidents of a kind that might lead to the predicted Orwellian world. Yet literary and social critics long have avoided coming to grips with the implications of Orwell's profound insight that socialism, despite its claim to benevolence, would deliver Orwell's 1984 by A. The major facts about Orwell and the origins of 1984 lay as enshrouded in mystery as when his London publisher, Secker and Warburg, first brought out the book in 1949. In the beginning, he is supposed to have been a committed socialist, a close observer of the founders of the socialist Fabian Society, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and of the famous socialist futurist H. Taking as a theme the strategy of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Cunctator, who famously delayed battle with the Carthaginians while exhausting them with endless harassments, the Fabians argued that the grand aim of socialism could be achieved bit by bit, through moderate increments, making small changes in society so as not to alarm the defenders of individual responsibility. The Fabian Society was founded in 1884, according to its Website, and continues to play a prominent role through the Socialist International in developing the policies of the Labour Party in Britain, of which Orwell once was an active member, and of allied Clintonian liberals in the United States. But when Orwell wrote 1984, it was more than a show of dislike for the Fabian socialists; it was humorous, biting, Swiftian satire against the socialist and liberal intellectuals. The leftist elites, then as now, praised the book for the wrong reasons. They applauded Orwell's resistance to the loss of civil liberties but refused, and continue to refuse, to see the book as a mirror held up to the totalitarian face of the left-wing intelligentsia. They tiptoe away from such questions as: Why choose the year 1984 as the title? Is it really just a science-fiction fantasy or is it political satire; and, if so, against whom is it directed? Finally, what are the likely sources of Orwell's dystopia? The critics try to explain away the hot spots. The title, 1984, is said to be simply the reversal of the final two digits in 1948, the year he was writing the book. Some critics say it is not even a serious book but just derivative science fiction on par with Soviet writer Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, a book Orwell had read in translation and reviewed for literary journals. Indeed, even the latest of Orwell's authorized biographers get it wrong. Orwell led a much fuller, richer life than is acknowledged in, say, Peter Davison's 1996 biography, George Orwell: A Literary Life, or in Peter Huber's 1993 book, Orwell's Revenge. They see in 1984 both melodrama and a touch of satire. The satire, they say, is aimed against the Soviet Union a safe target, now, even for socialists. They assert that Josef Stalin is Big Brother and that Stalin's Five-Year Plans buttressed by concocted statistics are other satirical targets of the book. The esteemed professors writing the major interpretive biographies of Orwell identify the character Emmanuel Goldstein, the book's traitorous leader of the Brotherhood, with Soviet apostate Leon Trotsky. Another dubious theory is that Orwell got the material for the melodramatic novel from his personal experiences while writing and producing programs for the Overseas Service of the government-run British Broadcasting Corp. BBC and as a journalist during the war, working for the press baron Lord Astor. These low-level journalistic jobs, they intimate, never gave him access to classified information. At first glance, the just-a-writer-working-for-the-wartime-BBC explanation appears credible; but on examination it may reveal the real truth. The biographers ignored the research of W. West, which puts an end to the dumb-journalist theory. West rummaged through the BBC archives and found 11 scripts for a show hosted by Orwell and broadcast by short-wave to the Indian subcontinent. As a result, the BBC asked him to produce programs about the glorious future of A. For this series, Orwell interviewed celebrated futurists, scientists and technologists, getting live responses to questions about the future of agriculture, science and technology. For another BBC broadcast, Orwell produced an analysis of one of his favorite books, Jack London's 1908 novel, The Iron Heel, a fanciful description of the perfect fascist state, Asgard, which reaches its full power to crush the people in... A further source of information for the book 1984 that appears never to have been adequately examined is the matter of Orwell's job during the war. Another Orwell biography, Bernard Crick's George Orwell, A Life, accepts at face value his claim that he got bored in September 1943 and just up and left BBC. Or was that an official cover story? Certainly the account does not ring true. Orwell was a skilled writer and a supreme patriot who wrote the stirring, down-home narrative The Lion and the Unicorn to describe the plight of the British nation struggling against Adolf Hitler. What patriot could just leave in the middle of a war? It seems more likely that for years he worked for a branch of British intelligence as did his second wife , was working undercover and had signed an oath never to reveal operations in which he participated. The question to ask then is whether Orwell all along was an undercover participant in Britain's secret propaganda effort against communists and fascists. Orwell's friend Richard Crossman, a Fabian socialist and later a prominent postwar Labour Party minister, was head of the German division of the PWE propaganda-warfare unit. A cadre of researchers has insisted that Orwell never worked undercover for British overseas intelligence, or MI6. But an equally vocal contingent says he in fact worked for MI5 -- British counter-intelligence. Their theories have earned such plausibility that The Economist put them on the cover of the magazine. Indeed, the definitive edition of Orwell's complete works gives documentary evidence that at the end of his life Orwell was spying on left-wing friends and reporting to the government which of them were most likely to fall under the sway of Soviet communism. So did the title 1984 have any special meaning in Orwell's mind, or did he do something so unimaginative as simply reversing the last two digits of 1948, the year he wrote the book? One theory, put forth by William Steinhoff, an American professor, in his book George Orwell and the Origins of 1984, points the finger at Orwell's fascination with London's description of a fascist state that achieves flower in calendar year 1984. But it makes more sense to look to socialism rather than fascism as the butt of Orwell's satire, especially after Animal Farm, his 1945 satire of socialist revolution. Then, in the microfilm files of The Times of London for 1947 when Orwell was working on his first drafts of 1984 , this reporter turned up an account of the progressive-socialist Fabian Society belatedly celebrating that year as its 75th anniversary, three years late because of the war. Now Orwell was an occasional platform speaker for the Fabians and a close observer of the Webbs. Yet Orwell also was a truth-teller. In writing a satire that portrays a Ministry of Truth vigorously promoting lies, he well may have been pondering the logical outcome of applying the principles of the Fabian Society as the world might be during its centenary celebration. The Fabian logo was the turtle, not the hare. Fabians believed they could be successful in taking over national governments incrementally even if it took 100 years. So why wouldn't Orwell take them at their word? When asked about the world he had described in 1984, Orwell responded that he was not saying such a future would occur, but that a future something like it could happen because that was the direction in which the world was going. So why would this Swiftian satire be unleashed against the gentle Fabian socialists? One reason is that they weren't all that gentle. The redoubtable Webbs had traveled in 1932 to Stalin's Soviet Union with Fabian playwright George Bernard Shaw to see socialism at work, and they were Potemkinized if not directly recruited by the NKVD, the Soviet secret police that preceded the KGB. The gushing Webbs claimed to have seen no evidence of famine, hardship or slave camps. In 1933 they published an account of their trip titled Soviet Russia: A New Civilization. Two years later they put out a revised edition even more obsequious, to which they added an exclamation point, as in Soviet Russia: A New Civilization! According to the archives of the Soviet intelligence services, the book was entirely written by the NKVD. The aging Webbs now were working to create in England a replica of the Soviet Union, and Orwell was watching them. When the Webbs lived at Passmoor Corners, they kept a large picture of Stalin prominently on the wall of an alcove. In 1984, the protagonist Winston Smith climbs the stairs to his flat, on each landing of which hangs a poster of Big Brother. And the first Fabian pamphlet appeared on April 4, the date on which 1984 begins. More provocatively, Orwell labels the party in power by the six letters INGSOC, an acronym that brings to the eye a grammatical present-progressive tense that suggests English progressive socialism. I once inquired through a literary agent who was a friend of Sonia Orwell, the writer's second wife, whether 1984 might be a satirical polemic directed at the Fabians. She giggled nervously and remarked that perhaps that was right. And the Fabian Society once more has catapulted itself into the picture because, upon the death of Sonia Orwell, rights to George's estate fell under control of -- the Fabian Society. According to representatives of HarperCollins, the Fabians will be in control of the 1984 copyright and name through the year 2025 and will do their best to block unauthorized investigative research about Orwell's anti-socialist works. Goldstein is the primal traitor against Big Brother. As a member of Parliament, Sidney was disparaged for being Jewish, though he was not. Again there are some interesting parallels. Another parallel appears in the experience of Sidney Webb as Lord Passmoor in Parliament. When he rose to speak in his annoying monotone, back benchers in the rude fashion of English parliamentary tradition arose at times to bleat like sheep or goats. Indeed with his pince-nez spectacles balanced precariously on his prominent nose, Webb did resemble a billy goat -- at least to certain members of Parliament. In 1984, when the traitorous Goldstein appears on the telescreen, party members hiss and toss books at his image. Then, amid the riotous chaos, comes the baaing sound of a herd of sheep that grows and grows, filling the screen. A wolf in a sheepskin is part of the shield of the Fabian Society. All of which suggests that Orwell's 1984 was written as a forecast scenario for the year 2000, but titled 1984 to bring to mind the centenary of the Fabian Society. Orwell's satirical approach assumes that the leaders of future governments would be Fabian successors of Beatrice and Sidney Webb, whom H. Security cameras are everywhere we go, malls, schools, workplaces, even in front of homes, but when do we say enough is enough? Constantly new cameras are being put up but nothing is being done to protect our privacy. What happened to our personal right of freedom? We do not have to be monitored constantly just to ensure that we are not committing a crime or causing any other sort of trouble. After reading the article I chose, I began to feel violated in a sense that I cannot even be alone when walking through a mall, or even going for a walk in my neighbourhood because I am are constantly being watched by scared neighbours protecting their properties. I was shocked to hear that Britain has installed listening devices in public places. Where does this nonsense end? Soon enough it will be mandatory to have telescreens in our homes, watching our every move and listening to everything we say to our families. I believe that having security cameras in some public places is a good idea. About a month ago in Toronto, a security camera in a townhouse complex helped to see the identity of a robber and to warn the public about this criminal. There are many benefits that come with security cameras, but where do we draw the line? Governments are just going to keep adding more cameras in even more obscured places until the people stand up for their rights. Another thing that really shocked me was that the U. Department of Homeland Security was offering municipalities grants to buy surveillance equipment. This is just more proof that the government is increasing the push for even small towns, with relatively small budgets, to set up security devices in every street corner. There is now no excuse left to the U. As I mentioned earlier, security cameras come with many benefits but there is also the question of who is watching at the other end of the camera. This I believe is what causes so much fear when we see a new camera being installed at the corner of our street. We cannot be sure as to who is sitting there watching what we are doing, which in turn is a very scary thought. ARTICLE ------- Times Writers Group: Big Brother is watching all of us The rapid spread of surveillance cameras throughout the world evokes fears of an Orwellian society — a totalitarian state characterized by continual monitoring of thoughts and behaviors. In London, they have listening devices in public places. Even though the information obtained from eavesdropping is not admissible in court without a warrant it is gathered to help police determine where crime might possibly occur. It may be more for gang activity than terrorism. The laws of Britain do not protect privacy to the extent the United States does. From the original Patriot Act to the current debate about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, government is fighting against going to courts to gain permission to survey and spy. Perhaps one believes these acts are necessary, and I am not arguing they have no value, but they nonetheless seem to open the door for more intrusive acts. On campus Take, for example, the use of surveillance cameras at St. According to the Oct. They are in dorms, parking lots, the library and outdoor areas. Four more are scheduled to be installed in the Recreational Center. Cloud State is looking to find someone doing something wrong. However, don't Jimmy and Jamie have a right to steal a kiss on the Riverwalk without fearing notice from Big Brother? Did they really surrender their property rights by deciding to live on campus? The implication is if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. About 25 percent opposed it. Department of Homeland Security is offering municipalities grants with which they can buy surveillance cameras. So for example, putting in cameras in Whitney Park using federal dollars, just in case a fight breaks out on the soccer field or a drug deal might happen by the river, seems OK. The cameras aren't expensive and we could always use a little more safety, right? Ben Franklin observed that those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Small steps Often the loss of freedom is incremental rather than cataclysmic. Freedom given up for security is hard to reclaim. When East and West Germany reunited, they discovered all the records the security police Stasi had collected on people. They eventually opened the records for people to see who had spied on whom. At one point, one in 66 East Germans worked for the Stasi. From the records, people found out who worked and spied on whom. Those who were persecuted are in essence persecuted again. Falcke is the Web editor for Stasiopfer, a support group for former East Germans persecuted by the secret service. He was imprisoned twice in the 1980s. Once they've collected the records on you, how can you ever be safe again? In the article Who's afraid of 1984? Muller argues that the future Orwell had foreseen in his novel, started around the year 1989 and has been developing over the past years into the dystopia portrayed in the 1984. Orwell foresaw in his novel an international event that eventually came to pass which was the Cold War, in the book it is called The Revolution. He also portrays the results this war could have had if the Communists and their idealism had not been stopped. Many people argue that if Stalinism had not been stopped, Communists would had used their technological advancements to help them destroy the freedom of individuals which is basically what occurs in Oceania. Muller however, says that these ideas were wrong because totalitarianism began to disappear between the years of 1989 and1991, years in which democracy started spreading along with the freedom it provided to its members. One of the most controversial topics presented to the audience in Orwell's novel, is that technology develops at a rate at which no one can control it. Even though in the novel the Party uses technology to keep in constant vigilance the population of Oceania to restrict liberty, Muller argues that Orwell's prediction of a future in which the government uses technology to obliterate liberty was incorrect. The flaw Orwell did not see in his vision was that technology could not only be used as a weapon to monitor the citizens of a country and spread false propaganda, but that technology can also be used as a tool people have access to to spread information faster and more efficiently to more people on the planet, it can be used to raise awareness about certain issues and to provide knowledge to whoever seeking it. That is why it is stated in the article that totalitarianism was destroyed by the technology they hoped to use to control the population. The example used is the radio which was used by the Communists to spread false propaganda but that also gave access to people living under Communist regime, to information about the world outside their totalitarianism walls, allowing them to see the truth about their society. Muller argues that Orwell's mistake was that he assumed that only the government would be able to afford good technology and the example he provides to disprove this statement, is that of the US military. In the 1970's the economic force driving the development of electronic technology in America, was the US military, but that is hardly the case nowadays since the consumer market is now providing electronic companies with more earnings. The article concludes by restating that technology is a force that is developing a faster rate than it can be controlled and does not always lead man down the path he wants to go. But it is a powerful force when it comes to spreading a truth that needs to be heard. The phenomenon George Orwell predicted reached full bloom around 1989, and has been straggling to completion ever since. Few people noticed, however, because of a simple error in Orwell's prediction. His analysis was right, but he got the sign wrong. His novel 1984, written in 1948, contained the foremost prophecy of the cold war: that technological advancement would render Stalinism unstoppable, with individual liberty the inevitable casualty. However, when the technologies that would enable this totalitarian global village reached fruition, the victim was not democracy, but totalitarianism itself. When the eponymous year arrived it spawned numerous essays, most arguing either that the dreaded era had actually come, if only we looked closely, or that it was imminent. But they were wrong. In the initial decades of the cold war, the totalitarianism envisioned by Orwell conquered much of the world, but then, like the Martians in H. Wells's The War of the Worlds, began to die as if from a mysterious disease. Indeed, in the period from 1989 to 1991 we watched democracy and liberty spread like a plague-to Communists first through the Soviet satellites and then into the heart of the Soviet Union itself. Ever since Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, futurists-including Orwell-have worried that technology's growing avalanche would overwhelm all attempts to control it. On that point, Orwell was right. But he mistakenly prophesied that governments would successfully use technology as a weapon to obliterate liberty. Radio had spread Hitler's evil eloquence to millions of Germans, many more than could have been reached by the unamplified human voice. By 1948, Stalin had effectively used technology to achieve god-like status in the Soviet Union. Orwell extrapolated the trend, and that's where he went wrong. Technology-especially infomation and communications technology-has been the most liberating force in history. It is the Frankenstein monster, but it kills tyrants; it is ultimately benevolent to the populace because it gives access to knowledge. The Big Lie fails when truth is also heard. Short-wave radios provide news, and the news rings true. It proved to be much more expensive and difficult for the communists to jam radio broadcasts than for the Radio Free Europe to set up new ones at difference frequencies. Meanwhile, short-wave radios shrank in size and cost. Information leaked, and then poured, across the walls built by totalitarianism. The technology of liberation in China was initially the fax machine, used to send foreign newspaper reports; the government just barely, and perhaps only temporarily, won the battle. It cannot resist forever. In fact, realizing that the Internet is necessary just to compete in the world markets, the government has begun to spend large amounts of money on getting the country wired. Cheap cell phones, too, are invading the developing world. Orwell's error was remarkably simple: he assumed that only the state would be able to afford high-tech-an assumption shared by virtually every prophet, science-fiction writer, and futurist. But it has proven to be wrong. As late as the 1970s, the driving force for electronic technology in the U. Most of us cannot even count the number of computers we own, because we don't know how many are hidden in our microwave ovens and automobiles. To be sure, technology has introduced problems. Like anything out of control, it does not always lead us where we want to go. It is particularly difficult to predict its long-term effect on the environment. But in a time when technology is frequently under attack, it is worthwhile to notice its role in spreading truth. It was not Stalinism, but the flow of information that proved to be unstoppable. In the article, many bridges are made between the totalitarian society of 1984, and the world we live in today. We all thrust our hate toward one person that symbolizes evil, and will never be caught. This person, along with endless warfare, keeps us living in fear, and when people live in fear, they can easily be controlled by the government. The art of Newspeak, invented by Orwell as a type of simplified language keeping people from having to think, has been put forth by the government and politicians in whom we trust today. This type of political conniving continues to repeat, all over the world, just like in the totalitarian state shown in 1984. Everything that we consume in the world today, is pre-thought out, by people in power, who have a shocking amount of control over the masses. As Gee relates our society with that of the totalitarian society of that shown in 1984, we begin to see where our society is headed if we continue to be brain washed by the government. The CIA provided funding and arms to bin Laden during the decade-long proxy war with the Soviet Union. To keep the masses in line and to suppress opposition, Oceania developed a language called Newspeak, which actually reduced the number and variety of words in use to render dissenting thought obsolete. Closely related to Newspeak is doublethink, in which someone is conditioned to either say the opposite of what he thinks or think the opposite of what is true. Yes, it's the USA PATRIOT Act. Clearly the name of the bill was concocted to fit the acronym. The purpose of this acronym is two-fold. Who can we nominate to run opposite this traitor in the next election? Two, it stifles opposition among the American people. But this legislation -- which was not available for members of Congress to read before they had to vote on it -- will do nothing to prevent future terrorism and much to increase the power of government over its subjects. Edgar Hoover's FBI became a de facto domestic political police force. Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the FBI to spy on his political enemies, especially antiwar groups. The PATRIOT Act does not restrict its provisions to terrorism investigations. In fact, they may be used against anyone, whether or not he is a suspect related to terrorism. With this new expanded, nebulous definition of terrorism now the law of the land, will I be considered a terrorist because I do not blindly follow everything George W. Bush and John Ashcroft decree; because I dare to write columns that question the actions of government? Will the editors of Strike-the-Root now be deemed terrorists for publishing my columns? Ashcroft's appearance was largely a dog-and-pony show, a political exercise designed to allow some Democrats on Capitol Hill to criticize the administration without disparaging President Bush directly, something they clearly cannot do in light of Dubya's 90% approval rating. Our efforts have been crafted carefully to avoid infringing on constitutional rights, while saving American lives. And unfortunately, the loss of liberty is all too real. As for his claim that constitutional rights will not be infringed upon and that American lives will be saved, this goes well beyond mere obfuscation; it is an outright lie. We already know that the government failed to save thousands of American lives on September 11, and the Constitution has taken a severe thrashing ever since. A dystopian society where the citizens are kept in the dark and are controlled and oppressed by the government is nothing new and has been tried many times with various methods and outcomes. The Soviet Union was an ideal model of a dystopian society. The USSR was a model of efficiency in its early years with its plan laid down by Lennon and Trotsky the Soviets had a solid plan to bring their country into the forefront of world and become a force to be reckoned with. The USSR inspired many other counties to follow its beliefs and ideas such as Vietnam, China and Cuba. Though not exactly the same in the way they were run those countries shared the same benefits and flaws as the USSR. This is comparable to Airstrip One in 1984 in many ways. Both the USSR and Airstrip One are both ran like a machine with the workers as the driving force of the machine. Both of them also wanted to emphasize their accomplishments so as to increase the morale of the workers and downplay or even ignore any of the downfalls or any negative press. Also the citizens live in an oppressed state, but at the same time they have to conform and believe everything the leaders say and do. They are both Dystopian societies and both lead their people with a blind faith and deceitful lies. This can only lead to a downfall in the system and it begins with people. The early Bolshevik regime laid the basis for a planned economy by expropriating foreign and domestic capital and imposing a monopoly of foreign trade. The ascendency in the mid-1920s of an anti-working class caste headed by Joseph Stalin grotesquely distorted the operation of the economy. Nonetheless, the institutions of collectivized property proved dynamic enough to transform the USSR from a predominantly peasant country into a modern industrial state. The truth is that despite the bureaucratic deformations, the Soviet economy grew rapidly for a considerable historical period. Between 1928 and 1938, while the imperialist countries were gripped by the Great Depression, manufacturing output expanded 600 percent in the USSR The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Paul Kennedy. After recovering from the massive devastation of the war, the USSR resumed its rapid economic growth. One of the themes of John F. Only in this manner could the road to genuinely socialist development be opened. The social disaster that has befallen the peoples of the former Soviet Union has amply confirmed this view. In the book 1984, the author George Orwell illustrates a created world, known as Oceania that is ruled by a totalitarian government where famines are common and poverty is a lifestyle. In a community where people work for their particular party and are categorized in cliques, society is kept in an endless state of fear by secret cops, known as Thought Police. Telescreens do the job of monitoring and detecting every persons move and speech. I agree with the author Dave Atkins to a certain degree, that our freedoms are diminishing and being attacked. It is now required that shoes be removed and people be scanned by machines. Intersections have cameras to make sure speed limits are obeyed. Lastly, plans are being made to install cameras on buses, subways and street cars so that authorities will have the ability to view daily activities and respond should there be any threat. Security and precautions taken today have certainly changed over the years. It is sad that this culture is scrutinized and judged. However violence is expressed openly in this culture and it is only wise to pay extra attention to them. This is simply an example of mandatory safety precautions. Without surveillance cameras authorities have no means of monitoring people of interest. This is a step towards more protection, not less freedom and privileges. With crimes being more prevalent than before, basic security will no longer provide the value of protection needed. ARTICLE USED: Tony Blair has turned Britain into a land where we are all prisoners by CHRIS ATKINS - 13th June 2007 Even George Orwell would be shocked. He described the sinister machinations of a totalitarian police state in his novel, 1984, and laid bare the danger of eroding our basic civil liberties, including the right to freedom of speech and the right to privacy. Although he famously coined the phrase 'Big Brother is watching you', even Orwell cannot have foreseen just how prescient those words would prove to be. Today, in Tony Blair's Britain - which I naively voted into power ten years ago - we have witnessed a breath-taking erosion of civil liberties. The truth is we are fast becoming an Orwellian state, our every movement watched, our behaviour monitored, and our freedoms curtailed. Between May 1997 and August 2006, New Labour created 3,023 new criminal offences - taking in everything from a law against Polish potatoes the Polish Potatoes Order 2004 to one which made the creation of a nuclear explosion in Britain officially illegal. Then there has been the incredible number of CCTV cameras - a total of 4. And, yesterday, we learnt that the Government has agreed to let the EU have automatic access to databases of DNA containing samples of people's hair, sperm or fingernails in order to help track down criminals, even though many thousands of those on record are totally innocent How did all this happen? To try to answer these questions, I have made a film, Talking Liberties, about the attack on our freedoms. First there was the Act which banned the age- old right of protest within half-a-mile of Parliament without special police authorisation. And who can forget Walter Wolfgang, the pensioner who was dragged out of the Labour Party Conference for daring to heckle the Home Secretary? He was detained under the Terrorism Act 2000, which gives the police unprecedented stop and search powers. In 2005 alone, this law was used to stop 35,000 people - none of whom was a terrorist. But this is only the thin end of the wedge - our civil liberties, enshrined in British law since the Magna Carta, are being whittled away. There has been an unprecedented shift of power away from the individual towards the state - but now this power is being used not to defeat terrorism, but to keep tabs on ordinary citizens. As well as a raft of repressive anti-terror legislation, there are the more insidious infringements of our freedom and privacy. We will soon see the introduction of the vast National Identity Register, linking all databases such as the DNA database to which the EU will soon have access. The tentacles of these networks will intertwine until they form a vast state surveillance mechanism, which can track every detail of your life: what books you borrowed from the library as a student, your sexual health, your DNA profile, your spending and your whereabouts at any given moment in time. Ministers are even creating a children's database, which will record truancy, diet, and medical history. And, of course, ID cards will be issued in 2009 - to be used every time we carry out routine tasks such as visiting the dentist. Soon, biometric data - your iris scan, fingerprints and DNA, will help to identify you further. And, all the time, there are those CCTV cameras - 20 per cent of the global total, even though Britain only has 0. New Labour has an absolute obsession with these devices. Soon, more sophisticated cameras will be able to recognise your face and the information matched to one of the national databases. All cars will eventually be fitted with a GPS chip, officially to simplify road tax payments but they will also allow government agencies to track every vehicle in the country. There are, of course, more alarming implications to being constantly monitored - as Orwell understood. Soon, we will be living in an open-air prison. Some may ask: why does all this matter? The answer is that to surrender our identity and privacy so comprehensively is to give up something we will never get back. Although New Labour says its mania for data-gathering is all part of its plan to protect us, there's no guarantee that future governments who will be inheriting a nationwide surveillance machine and the National Identity Register won't use it to more malign ends. Totalitarian regimes have, after all, always collected information on their citizens. Hitler pioneered the use of ID cards as a means of repression. The Belgians left Rwanda with a bloody legacy by implementing an ID card system which divided the population into Hutu and Tutsi. When the 1994 genocide began, these cards proved a device for horrific ethnic cleansing, with one million people dying in 100 days. The Stasi secret police in Soviet East Germany kept millions of files in order to keep track of everyone in the country. Of course these examples are the extremes - but basic liberties such as privacy and free speech have been hard-won over centuries and history shows that we should not allow them to be brushed aside. This shift away from individual freedom towards state power has happened slowly, and almost without us noticing. Like so many others, I was proud to put a cross against the box next to New Labour in 1997 as a first-time voter. But now I have become shocked at the vast swathe of new laws which had been introduced, most of them in response to terrorism. We are told that this is all for the good - these laws, and the surveillance cameras and ID cards will stop terrorists. Is that the case? The London bombers carried ID and were observed on CCTV - of course it did not stop them committing their terrible crime. Intelligence experts say that most information leading to genuine breakthroughs come from informants, not through random tracking or surveillance of the general population. In any case, liberty and security aren't balanced on some delicate equilibrium, as John Reid, the Home Secretary, and Tony Blair would have us believe. History has shown us that it is precisely when you undermine people's basic rights that they mobilise towards radical groups. After all, one of the greatest recruiters for the IRA in Northern Ireland was the policy of internment, under which people were imprisoned without trial. Have we learnt nothing from our past? Stop and search laws applied to Britain's Muslim communities will simply polarise those groups. Instead, we need them to help us protect the country from terrorism. It's not all doom and gloom, of course - as I hope my film reflects. The sheer absurdity of the bewildering array of idiotic new laws has given us an abundance of bizarre and hilarious situations for our documentary. But behind this dark comedy is something much more disturbing. Faced with the threat of terrorism, the Government has told us that we must lay down our freedoms for our lives. Perhaps it has forgotten the millions of people from past generations who have laid down their lives for our freedom. I think we owe it to those people to turn this tide. Whichever leader happens to be in power also uses the same principles of doublethink that George Orwell imposes in Airstrip One to keep his the governing body people under control. Minorities proles are still kept ignorant and held to a lower standard because of it. In the same sense, they cannot become conscious because they cannot rise up and fight against it, and they cannot fight against it until they become conscious. This principle of doublethink is described by Orwell as the Ingsoc tenet Ignorance is Strength. The ignorance of the people is the strength of the state. Wood also said that another Ingsoc principle is prevalent in American politics, War is Peace. If the president tells them that Saddam is trying to get materials for nuclear weapons from Africa, what evidence do we have to prove otherwise? Freedom is Slavery is also used as a sort of brainwashing technique in 1984 and it is implemented in the same way in modern society. ARTICLE: Uncle Sam is Newspeak for Big Brother The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society in tact. Orwell, 164 George Orwell wrote this passage referring to the ruling groups in Oceania, the dystopian world he created in his novel, 1984. A group called Ingsoc, also known as the Party, controls all that takes place in this totalitarian society: what foods people eat, what clothes they wear, what books they read, when they wake up and when they go to sleep. Based on regular English, which is known in the book as Oldspeak, Newspeak was formed by removing many words and combining others. Those found guilty of thoughtcrime are removed from society, presumably killed, and never mentioned again. The only people who are allowed to live without as much interference from the Party and Big Brother are those members of the out-group, or outcast set, known as the Proletariat or the Proles, in Newspeak. Eventually, Winston is caught, and he finds out that Party defectors are not killed, but are brainwashed into loving the Party and Big Brother and are then returned to the outskirts of society amongst the Proles. While there is much racial and ethnic diversity among the multitude referred to under this heading, the majority are African-American and Hispanic and, regardless of race, the majority are economically disadvantaged and undereducated while the vast majority of those in power are rich and White. From attacks on access to education to attacks on physical well-being, the United States government has taken several specific steps to keep its underclass from advancing — all while giving the impression of being helpful and supportive. The evidence of inequality is plentiful, and the literally hundreds of books and thousands of articles that have been written on the topic still have not detailed it all. Such stories and suggestions overlook a very important fact: History does not happen in a vacuum; everything that has happened in the past affects what is happening right now. At this very moment, the president of the United States is justifying a war with Iraq saying it is the only way to bring about peace and national security. Similar situations have occurred during several American presidencies; the U. His likeness has been, and still is, prominently displayed in most armed forces recruiting offices on large posters with the ominous caption UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU. I believe they chiefly use that power to present events in a distorted light. During one of his recent national addresses, U. I believe that Bush knows, as others before him knew: The less people know, the stronger their belief in whatever you tell them. Although he later rescinded the statement, Bush wanted everyone to believe this falsehood to be true so he could continue to justify his War is Peace stance. As people learn more of the truth about the war, they become less enthusiastic about it — a logical explanation for wanting to keep the masses ignorant. The perpetuation of ignorance is not relegated to the media and current events. The books that supposedly teach the history of the United States are riddled with errors, both of omission and commission. As it was in Oceania, the result of these actions in America — the deferment of funds to war, the perpetuation of ignorance — is the continued subjugation of the underclass and, for all intents and purposes, their slavery. Slaves worked hard and were only provided with enough food and clothes to survive; many urban Americans work more than 40 hours a week and only earn enough to survive. Who is really reaping the fruit of their labor? Although they are technically free, in a twist of fate, their Freedom is Slavery. Unfortunately, I believe Uncle Sam wants it to stay that way: He defers precious manpower and equipment to the military while public schools are severely understaffed, under funded and desperately in need of supplies. The Language of Newspeak, Good or Bad? The article by Herbert London talks about how the U. One of the U. This creates the question whether the human rights of one country crosses the other rights of another. The term of human rights loses its meaning in the way the U. With this in mind the U. Again Herbert addresses Israel as the U. Similarly the point that Herbert is stating is that the U. The meaning and understanding of human rights becomes different as it is more leant to certain countries. In addition, Herbert addresses the way the U. Their views on terrorism have become vague in result of the many situations of terrorist bombings. In a way the U. The organization who stands for peace and security does not seem concerned for these killings and the casualties in result. The innocent bloodshed of many people cannot be justified since extremist like Ahmadinejad and Arafat are still welcomed by the U. Even the charters created by the U. For nations like Israel the U. The charter is presented with misinterpret understanding that opposes what it represented initially, as to fight back against danger and attack. Indeed the way that the U. Overall the way that the U. What Herbert is trying to show is that people can be able to identify the flaws that associate with the U. Herbert presents the fact that the context of newspeak embodies itself in the way the U. The main argument of the article is that in lying and changing meanings of words and expression, it affects the understanding of what is true and right. In comparison, the U. The terminology newspeak can be useful in means of revealing and understanding fabrication of what is presented to us. The article makes the connection between the broken down meanings of newspeak relating to the way the U. Alone what newspeak has done in reality is open our own thoughts to stop and think about the way we interrupt what is given to us. We as people need to be able to determine our morals by transvaluating when looking at different forms of communication. While Orwell passed this mortal coil years ago, his notion of false meaning is alive and well and residing in the United Nations. The commission organized to promote this goal is composed of the most serious violators of freedom. The fifty-seven Muslim nations invariably condemn Israel as an autocratic nation occupying and dominating Arab territory in the West Bank. By contrast, Jews are oppressed in every Arab Muslim state, are denied their right to worship and, in most instances, have been forced to emigrate. Terror at the U. If Ahmadinejad violates the non-proliferation treaty endorsed by the U. Arafat brandishing a weapon as he spoke to the General Assembly was heralded as well. As I see it, those who follow U. Shame will not enter this U. Those who cover the U. When Zimbabwe and the Sudan are considered the equals of the United States and the United Kingdom, relativistic standards must be imposed. Even a debating society must realize at some point that some views are more valid than others. Hence word inversion is a useful, alas, a necessary tactic in an organization that refuses to consider a universal standard of justice, freedom, fair play, representative government and human rights. Orwellianism is the guide for nations that cannot justify their actions in the context of morality, but nonetheless want political recognition in this world body. Moreover, the more one uses the languages of dissimulation, the more it is believed and accepted. That is the U. With constant advances in technology and such a deep rooted fear of terrorists driven into society since 9-11, it seems this was an unavoidable outcome. Any invasions into the privacy of the public could be classified as necessary. A law that Weiner believes is parallel in connection to the laws of 1984, are those of the USA PATRIOT Act. This Act significantly expanded the authority of the United States law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications and medical, financial and other records. With this law in place, nothing was secret; anything and everything about anyone could be used to incriminate them as a terrorist. The Party reminded everyone continuously that they were being watched and they even encouraged everyone to spy on each other. Weiner highlights the fact that this is all too familiar to our daily lives. Weiner isolates a relation between the ways set forth in 1984 compared to those of the present. Therefore citizens are forced to allow their freedom to be demolished right in front of them, or else they will be deemed traitorous to their country. If this is happening so widespread in America, what is to stop these types of laws from spreading to other countries and freedom being abolished totally? If we continue to act the way we do and continue to set forth more restricting laws, we will only end up destroying that which we were trying to keep. District Judge Ann L. District Judge Victor Marrero wrote. The giant telescreen in every room monitors behavior. Red, orange and yellow are no longer just bright, pretty colors: They now represent levels of national security alerts. Holding citizens indefinitely without access to the courts or counsel. Monitoring library withdrawals and Internet communications. Creating a national system for citizens to monitor and report on each other, regardless of reason, including paranoia or ethnic bias. Developing a massive computer system to monitor every purchase. Creating a national identification card. However, that fact does not allow playing on our fears and increasing our paranoia about our personal safety. Joseph McCarthy tried that with Communism in the 1950s. The administration has tried to condition the American people, just as Pavlov did with his dogs. Congress is now revisiting the legality of the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance programs, torture of prisoners in secret prisons and barring detainees from counsel and knowing the charges against them. By law, in the next few months, Congress must renew, change or end the Patriot Act and surveillance programs. Congress must act quickly or the courts should permanently strike down these presidential fear-based abuses. Al-Qaida hates Americans of all creeds and races and will do whatever it can to destroy us and our way of life. In Pakistan Saturday, President Pervez Musharraf declared martial law, as well as suspended parliament elections, arrested all who opposed him, and above all else, suspended the countries constitution. The main reason behind the rejection is that Misharraf wants to run while still army chief. All this means is that slowly, Pakistan is slowly becoming an Orwellian state. An Orwellian society is a dystopia is a society that is full of negatives, such as poverty, famine, and disease, the opposite of utopia. In 1984 Big Brother arrests, and eventually, vaporizes them. Big Brother also uses the fear of near by states to keep the masses in check. Big Brother keeps destroys any real democratic chance as well as justice. These issues are going on in present day Pakistan. The President has suspended the countries constitution, allowing the government to arrest demonstrators against the government, which has already happened, and the numbers of those arrested are in the hundreds. It is scary to see such scary actions taking place in the 21st century, but as our world changes and evolves, more crazy measures show up. The Orwellian novel 1984 is suppose to be a warning for the public. Never should the public be afraid of their governments, the governments should be afraid of the public. Here we see the actions of a government in which it tries to maintain power, resorting to dangerous levels of totalitarian decision making. The United States, one of the major supporters of Pakistan, in terms of aid, say they are shocked by such an action. If this is true, then why no immediate action against it. We as a democratic country are playing the part of the proles right now, just accepting the action and moving on with out lives. This is exactly why Orwell was instructing us to keep an eye open for, and to affect change when possible. Hopefully the message does not get lost in translation and free elections can be held in such a county that holds some clout in the Middle East. Hundreds arrested in opposition crackdown in Pakistan ISLAMABAD -- Pakistan braced for protests against emergency rule on Monday, while President Pervez Musharraf faced mounting pressure from the United States to hold parliamentary elections in January. Declaring an emergency on Saturday, General Musharraf cited spiralling militancy and hostile judges to justify his action. Police detained opposition figures and lawyers -- between 400 and 500 according to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz -- and placed reporting curbs on the media to stifle the risk of outrage spilling on to the streets. Musharraf, who seized power in a coup in 1999, also suspended the constitution. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed disappointment with Musharraf in terms seldom heard before from U. Rice said, urging Pakistan to get back on the road to democracy, and warning U. In Pakistan, police detained hundreds of Pakistani opposition figures and lawyers and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said national elections, due in January, might be rescheduled. The emergency effectively thwarted U. Rice told reporters travelling with her in Jerusalem, adding that the United States still wanted to cooperate with Pakistan on counter-terrorism issues. Musharraf has also suspended the constitution. Musharraf said he acted in response to rising Islamist militancy in nuclear-armed Pakistan and what he called a paralysis of government by judicial interference. Most Pakistanis and foreign diplomats believe his main motive was to prevent the Supreme Court invalidating his Oct. Musharraf, in a midnight televised address, said the country was in grave danger of becoming destabilised. Washington had earlier urged Mr. Musharraf to avoid taking authoritarian measures and has urged him to go ahead with parliamentary elections. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, suspended eight months ago by Mr. Musharraf and reinstated in July, was fired after refusing to take a fresh oath following the suspension of the constitution. Pakistan Television said that the cabinet, national and provincial assemblies would continue to function and that Abdul Hameed Dogar had been appointed as new Chief Justice. A lawyers' movement that emerged at the vanguard of an anti-government campaign last March called for a countrywide strike on Monday to protest Mr. There were no troops or large numbers of police on the streets of Islamabad or other main cities -- Karachi, Lahore or Peshawar -- though the detentions were conducted in all of them. Barricades blocked the main boulevard to the presidency building in Islamabad, where police arrested 40 opposition activists including a former chief of the army's Inter Services Intelligence agency, Hameed Gul, a supporter of Islamist causes. A leader of exiled former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's party voiced defiance as he was detained in Multan, a major city in Punjab province. Musharraf said he still planned to move Pakistan to civilian-led democracy. He had been promising to quit the army and become a civilian leader if he was given a second five-year term, but uncertainty over the court's decision had left the country in suspense and stock markets fell last week amid the uncertainty. Pakistan's internal security has deteriorated sharply in recent months with a wave of suicide attacks, including an assassination attempt on former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto last month that killed 139 people. Musharraf ordered troops to storm the Red Mosque in Islamabad to crush a Taliban-style movement based there. At least 105 people were killed in the raid and a wave of deadly militant attacks and suicide bombings followed in which more than 800 people have been killed. In a fillip for the army, however, pro-Taliban militants set free on Sunday 211 Pakistani troops they had held captive since late August in a tribal region near the Afghan border, a military spokesman said. Bhutto flew back to Pakistan on Saturday from a brief visit to Dubai and accused Mr. Another leading opposition figure, former cricket captain Imran Khan, was put under house arrest, but escaped hours later. It is scary knowing that your every move is being watched by a group of strangers. Whatever they saw you do that they did not agree with, or feel was right you would be punished for. Presently, in Britain CCTV cameras have been installed to observe the streets, both day and night to make certain there is no littering or bad behaviour. It has also been said that speakers have been attached to these cameras which send out verbal warnings to individuals who are performing illegal acts. These security devices have made it hard for a lot of people to act the way they normally would in public. One group of individuals want to know everything that is going on around them and want every event that occurs within their society to be because of them. Every person is entitled to their privacy rights. It is up to us to express our thoughts and opinions to the government so that we are given these rights and not in fear of hearing some person yell at you while you are walking down the street, for doing something such as throwing a gum wrapper on the ground. Daily Mail Article Big Brother is shouting at you Big Brother is not only watching you - now he's barking orders too. Britain's first 'talking' CCTV cameras have arrived, publicly berating bad behaviour and shaming offenders into acting more responsibly. The system allows control room operators who spot any anti-social acts - from dropping litter to late-night brawls - to send out a verbal warning: 'We are watching you'. Middlesbrough has fitted loudspeakers on seven of its 158 cameras in an experiment already being hailed as a success. Jack Bonner, who manages the system, said: 'It is one hell of a deterrent. It's one thing to know that there are CCTV cameras about, but it's quite another when they loudly point out what you have just done wrong. One of the control room operators warned them over the loudspeakers and they looked up, startled, stopped fighting and scarpered in opposite directions. It challenges unacceptable behaviour and makes people think twice. The surprised youth stopped, and looked about. A look of horror spread across his face as he realized the voice was referring to him. He dismounted and wheeled his bike through the crowded streets, as instructed. Law-abiding shopper Karen Margery, 40, was shocked to hear the speakers spring into action as she walked past them. Afterwards she said: 'It's quite scary to realize that your every move could be monitored - it really is like Big Brother. He believes the talking cameras will dramatically cut not just anti-social behaviour, but violent crime, too. And if the city centre scheme proves a success, it will be extended into residential areas. The control room operators have been given strict guidelines about what commands they can give. Yelling 'Oi you, stop that', is not permitted. Instead, their instructions make the following suggestions: 'Warning - you are being monitored by CCTV - Warning - you are in an alcohol-free zone, please refrain from drinking'; and Warning - your behaviour is being monitored by CCTV. It is being recorded and the police are attending. We think that's a nice finishing touch. The vast majority of people welcome these cameras. Liberty spokesman Doug Jewell said: 'None of us likes litterbugs or yobs playing up on a Saturday night, but talking CCTV cameras are no substitute for police officers on the beat. I said, cautiously, that our imperialist history books said that the war had been started by the North. The poor man's face fell as if I had wounded him. It is an essential part of North Korea's founding myth that the war was started by the Americans and the South. Even a mention of any other version of history upset him, an intelligent person with a sense of humour, judging by his behaviour the rest of the time. Inspectors visit frequently to check that nobody has tampered with this mental barricade. As a result, a Kingdom of Heaven cannot succeed because by neglecting the feelings and thoughts of its people, the community is unable to function, because the lack of human progression causes the Kingdom to go backwards in time, turning it from a utopia, and into a dystopia and decrepit world. But, as Peter Hitchens found when he evaded the Marxist state's ban on foreign journalists, it is a nation to be pitied rather than feared... If this is a showcase, then what can it be like in the parts they do not want us to see? North Korea's capital, Pyongyang, is closed to all but the most favoured citizens. Only friends of the regime may live here. Yet in this citadel of privilege, every face I see is thin, every belt tight, every garment worn and faded, every child and adult under-sized, most windows unlit. For the ordinary poor, who cannot even leave their towns without a permit, Pyongyang is almost as inaccessible as New York or Paris. How thin and ragged are they? Those considered unreliable must live out their chilly, pinched lives amid the dreary spoil-heaps and miserable townships of the coalfields. How wretched can they possibly be? As for those who offend the regime, a chain of labour camps, stretching from Yongchon on the west coast to Onsong in the far north east, is hidden in the northern mountains, where no foreigner penetrates and where people die of hunger and despair, unrecorded. I am not sure how we can live our prosperous lives, knowing these wretches exist. Here in the alleged paradise city of Pyongyang, the buildings are blistered and stained, the paint faded and cracked. Except for a few main processional ways — and even here there are signs of decay — the shabbiness and gloom are overwhelming. At dusk, when a normal city would begin to sparkle, an almost total darkness falls in the long interval before the first lights come on. Later, when the government considers bedtime has arrived, the power is cut off from a million homes, whose occupants will be wakened at 5am by plonky music leaking from loudspeakers, and ordered to work by a siren at 7am, every day but Sunday and sometimes even then. Now, in the early evening, silence is almost complete. I can hear a drunken man singing from what feels like half a mile away. Yet we are at the heart of a city of perhaps three million people. And the lights, when they do come on, are so feeble that I am suddenly reminded — poignantly — of the austere British townscapes of my own childhood in the early Fifties. Except that even they were never as austere as this. Nor were they sinister and mad, as this place is. If all politics is a sort of mental illness that gets worse as the politicians' power increases, then this is the locked ward where absolute power has brought absolute insanity. Brooding over the deranged cityscape is the ugliest building in the universe, a 1,000ft pyramid, already a ruin though it has never been finished and never will be, perhaps because the money has run out, perhaps because it is so jerry-built that nobody would ever have dared stay in it. Official guides pretend not to notice it though it is by far the tallest structure in Pyongyang. This symbol of overweening ambition is by a strange coincidence the exact shape and size of the Ministry of Truth, the chief source of official lies in George Orwell's prophecy of just such a state, and just such a city, in 1984. It is almost as if North Korea's rulers have taken Orwell's novel as a handbook rather than a warning. But where Orwell's ministry was a glittering white, the abandoned Ryugyong Hotel is a dingy dun-brown, its hundreds of glassless windows like sockets gazing at what its maker, the Great Leader Kim Il Sung, has wrought. And what he has wrought is hopeless failure, a long, grim joke that has yet to reach its punchline. Kim's city is the capital of a state that is far more of a danger to its own people than it is to the rest of the world. It may be — I think the evidence is sketchy — that North Korea has a nuclear bomb. What is certain is that it has almost nothing else. It cannot any longer even fake success at its very heart. Its great propaganda festival, the Arirang Games where thousands of young Koreans create vast pictures with eerily synchronised movements, is a pathetic remnant. It is the only show I have ever been to where the cast is far bigger than the audience. The colossal May Day Stadium was three-quarters empty the night I went. Sometimes it descended into circus, with platoons of dancing children dressed as boiled eggs, and a motorbike on a tightrope. Every machine in the country is close to breakdown. This even affects parts of the system that are on show. I was there as a tourist, arriving in a Soviet-built Tupolev from the age of Yuri Gagarin, which shuddered and strained into the sky and was prudently kept clear of terminal buildings at the Chinese airport from which I began my journey. My tour bus failed its fuel tank sprang a leak that the driver tried to plug with chewing gum on the way to a museum of gifts given to Kim Il Sung. Our guide pedalled off for help on a borrowed bike but the bus that eventually rescued us also breathed its last, forcing us to walk the final few hundred yards to an unscheduled break for lunch. We never arrived at the museum. While the first bus was broken down, we were prevented from moving more than a few yards away from it — probably because we would then have been able to look closely at the nearby lorryload of runt-sized troops, part of the supposedly fearsome North Korean army. The weapons they carried were ancient, probably more dangerous to their users than to their targets. Vehicles everywhere were decrepit, clothes shabby and faded from much washing, in the greys, browns and greens that dominated our streets in the years before cheap and colourful fabrics. I never saw anyone in jeans or a baseball cap. The soldiers looked universally undersized and underfed, usually with prominent cheekbones. And the 'military-first' policy means that they get better food supplies than most civilians. How do the ordinary people fare? But here is one possibility. There was no glass in the windows of their train. This month the roads are lined with flowers growing riotously in the verges, a hint that beneath the weight of despotism, Koreans seek freedom in ordinary things. One of my five days in the country was a public holiday, an ancient festival of ancestor worship too powerful to be suppressed, when the whole country went picnicking in hilltop country graveyards. But on a working day, in a 200-mile drive, I saw just two tractors in operation in the fields — probably because there is no fuel for them. In five days of travelling by road, I saw miles of electrified railway, but only four moving trains, and they were rolling slowly and hauled by diesel locomotives, suggesting the current is erratic or just switched off. My allegedly luxury hotel in Pyongyang had its power cut off each morning as soon as the tour parties had set off on their various pilgrimages to the many shrines of the Great Leader. Sometimes it was if we were witnessing a sort of Truman Show, in which even the casual passers-by might easily have been rehearsed actors pretending to be real people. A promised visit to Pyongyang's underground railway consisted of a trip between two stations, during which ordinary travellers were cleared from our carriage. Many passengers stared at us with shock that we were there at all. Even in Pyongyang, a foreigner is an event. As we descended the immensely deep escalators, a party of women on the upward staircase were singing a song about how they couldn't manage without their Dear Leader. A similar hymn drifted from the loudspeakers. But not everything could be arranged or controlled. A number of incidents lifted the veil without meaning to. Richard Jones, the intrepid photographer who accompanied me, raised his camera towards an ancient, 5ft gentleman in a Mao cap, trimming the grass on a Pyongyang boulevard. The old man, possibly a veteran of the Korean War, snarled and raised his sickle as if to strike. Having been taught from childhood that Westerners are wolves in human form, he intended to defend the fatherland against the imperialist spy. On another occasion, we arrived at our pre-booked restaurant to find a drunk — or possibly a corpse — sprawled outside. Seeing us approaching, loyal citizens immediately formed a human barrier to shield the sight from alien eyes. The trouble is, even if everything we saw was what we were meant to see, the impression given is of a society in an advanced stage of decomposition, held together by a fragile web of lies. The cult of the Great Leader is much like that of the Japanese Emperor Hirohito before 1945. In fact it is probably modelled on it, since all Korea was under Japanese rule until 1945 and the people were compelled to worship the emperor as a god. But it has other elements, too. But there may be other roots for this. Kim Il Sung as a teenager played the organ in his father's Protestant church and seems to have liked it. When American soldiers captured his offices in the Korean War, they found a sizeable organ, of all things, installed there. Kim was bored by Christianity, preferring by his own account to go fishing than to church. But he was paying attention, and many have wondered if the worship of father and son — Kim Il Sung and present leader Kim Jong Il — is a blasphemous copy of Christianity. In any case, it seems to work. As we barrelled down the long, straight, empty motorway that leads to the closed border with South Korea, our guide asked merrily if we knew how the Korean War had started. I said, cautiously, that our imperialist history books said that it had been started by the North. The poor man's face fell as if I had wounded him. It is an essential part of North Korea's founding myth that the war was started by the Americans and the South. Even a mention of any other version of history upset him, an intelligent person with a sense of humour, judging by his behaviour the rest of the time. He took it as a British person of my generation might take a claim that Britain was the aggressor in 1939. It was to avoid upsetting or scandalising him that I later made a shameful obeisance to the Kim Il Sung image, laying flowers and offering a perfunctory bow. I feared that if I didn't, I would be treading on a real, living personal faith, not just showing disrespect to a cold, dead cult. And I think I was correct in this judgment. For this really is — as Eastern Europe and Russia never were — a wholly closed country where a large majority more or less believe the state propaganda. East Germany tried to stop its people watching West German TV, but abandoned the effort because it was just too difficult. Powerful transmitters — the BBC, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe — broadcast to Russia and her empire so successfully that in Prague in the Seventies people would come up to me in trams to pass on their thanks for the existence of the BBC Czech service. Every radio and television has its tuning dial soldered so that it can receive only North Korean signals. Inspectors visit frequently to check that nobody has tampered with this mental barricade. And, while a few brave souls defy this resoldering the dials when an inspection is due , most are too frightened, or so loyal, that it would never occur to them to do so. In Cold War days South Korea used to float radios across the border on balloons, but few dared use them even when they got through. There is no internet access here for ordinary beings. But when one of us tried to reach the Google search site, he could get nowhere.


Working...
X