Orwell's "1984"

[Unregistered]

In today's America, I think one of the most important books a student could read is Orwell's "1984." I'm not a teacher, but I do have the greatest respect for them. Could anyone tell me how frequently this book is used in today's high schools?

Thank you.

[Unregistered]

We don't use that book anymore. We support our president and do not wish to invite students to question his methods.

[Unregistered]

Uh...I'm not sure how to reply to the above response.

In my school all Jrs. read this. If students are in AP classes they don't do it Jr. year, but Sr. year.

[Unregistered]

I would say rarely, because it conflicts with the authoritarian society that we are creating where humans are commodities to be graded like meat and education is nothing more than job training. We call it preparation for the "real world".

[Unregistered]

Hey, just read the newspaper. Same deal.

[Unregistered]

I would say rarely, because it conflicts with the authoritarian society that we are creating where humans are commodities to be graded like meat and education is nothing more than job training.

If anything, today's schools lean far more towards college prep than in the past. In fact, many teachers bemoan the loss of vocational courses, such as woodshop, in order to teach more scholastic content.

[Unregistered]

I agree that 1984 is a must-read, especially today with the Patriot Act, etc. I used to have my high school seniors read it in English class, but now the government teacher has the seniors read it in government class. I think it's a completely appropriate and worthwhile novel to be read in either class!

[tom Tuttle]

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-now.html

[Unregistered]

Dumb web site. Most of the items on that web page were true by the late 1950s.

Orwell was a gifted writer, but 1984 is still a work of fiction. We just interpret current events to fit within his supposed prophecies.

[Unregistered]

or so the masters of doublespeak would have you believe...

[Unregistered]

I am currently reading (for pleasure) Lost Lake in which the rise of paranoia is rivaled only by you 1984 nay sayers.

[Unregistered]

do you ever get a headache from the strain of keeping your eyes squeezed shut like that?

[Unregistered]

If you want to live in state of paranoid delusions about people watching your every move, be my guest. Frankly, having a security camera watching for thieves doesn't bother me too much, as is having a television in my house.

[tom Tuttle]

If you want to live in state of paranoid delusions about people watching your every move, be my guest. Frankly, having a security camera watching for thieves doesn't bother me too much, as is having a television in my house.

The suspension of human rights always begins with social "undesirables". First there are cameras in public places, then they're listening in on phone conversations, and if you can't figure out what comes next, you are one of the blissfully-ignorant-of-history that Orwell celebrated as the primary cause for the loss of plebian freedom. Just as a point of examing today's doublespeak, what is the difference between the terms "commander and chief" and "dictator"? Take away the connotation and is there any difference? The end result is always the same. Sooner or later, you'll wake up and find what happens to the sonambulists who give up their freedoms for security.

[Unregistered]

The suspension of human rights always begins with social "undesirables". First there are cameras in public places, then they're listening in on phone conversations, and if you can't figure out what comes next, you are one of the blissfully-ignorant-of-history that Orwell celebrated as the primary cause for the loss of plebian freedom.

Let me guess what comes next: Hitler? Or Stalin?

Just as a point of examing today's doublespeak, what is the difference between the terms "commander and chief" and "dictator"?

I don't know, because I have never heard of a "commander and chief" before. Maybe you meant "Commander-in-Chief." Boy, it sure sounds like you are a real authority on the Executive branch of our government. I can't wait to hear your next political lecture on the "Speaker inside the House."

[Unregistered]

this simple minded old maid teacher confuses spelling and grammar with political acumen. find an issue to write about or get a life.

[Unregistered]

Dumb web site. Most of the items on that web page were true by the late 1950s.

Orwell was a gifted writer, but 1984 is still a work of fiction. We just interpret current events to fit within his supposed prophecies.

Isn't that what good writing is supposed to do, transend time?

As far as the site, for many students such a site wouldn't be "dumb," it would help them see the connections that they might not be able to make on their own.

[Unregistered]

this simple minded old maid teacher confuses spelling and grammar with political acumen.

Anyone that thinks the proper military title of our President is "commander and chief" has no business calling others "blissfully ignorant."

Isn't that what good writing is supposed to do, transend time?

I never said Orwell was a bad writer.

As far as the site, for many students such a site wouldn't be "dumb," it would help them see the connections that they might not be able to make on their own.

What connections? When Orwell wrote his book nearly every household had a radio, so the fact that most households later had a television is hardly surprising and not indicative of anything. The notion that having a television in your house is tantamount to being continuously watched by someone else is laughable.

Nearly every one of the items on that web page is a huge stretch. Watching for speeders and shoplifters is equated to controlling people's thoughts. Watching television for a few hours a day (ridiculously characterized as "rarely [turning] them off") is equated to being watched 24 hours a day. Rationing is equated to health warnings.

Just one dumb inference after another. I found maybe three items on that Web page that even raised an eyebrow.

[Unregistered]

Just one dumb inference after another. I found maybe three items on that Web page that even raised an eyebrow.

Why don't you just read the book and maybe learn something?

[Unregistered]

I have read the book and found it very entertaining and thought provoking. But I don't make ridiculous leaps in logic to somehow twist the author's thoughts into prophecies. Those that do remind me of people who play records backwards, listening for anything that sounds like "Satan is great." You're just fooling yourselves.

[Unregistered]

Orwell himself told us he was writing about the now. If you read 1984 without seeing the parallels you missed the point.

[Unregistered]

I don't know, because I have never heard of a "commander and chief" before. Maybe you meant "Commander-in-Chief." Boy, it sure sounds like you are a real authority on the Executive branch
Check out some web sites. The c-in-c refers to himself as the c-and-c.

[Unregistered]

Google 'Bushisms'

also f.y.i., it's considered bad netiquette to spellcheck others online. esp. since text messaging

[Unregistered]

Check out some web sites.

Sorry, I don't get involved in wild goose chases. Since you supposedly had the web site address right in front of you, why didn't you just post it?

[Unregistered]

Orwell himself told us he was writing about the now. If you read 1984 without seeing the parallels you missed the point.

You will see the parallels if you truly want to see them. Again, it is like playing a record backwards; you hear what you want to hear. But anyone equating the owning of a television with being continuously is stretching pretty hard. (Again, most households owned a radio when Orwell wrote his book... so what if people now own televisions?)

[Unregistered]

You will see the parallels if you truly want to see them. )
And, as Orwell points out, what Big Brother doesn't want you to see, you won't. Thanks for proving his point. Or did you ever understand the point?

[Unregistered]

And, as Orwell points out, what Big Brother doesn't want you to see, you won't.

Obviously Big Brother must want us to discuss 1984, otherwise we wouldn't be doing it. (Is that how this logic works?)

We now return to our regularly scheduled Doomsday prophecy.

By the way, do you own a tv?

[Unregistered]

nope, no tv. but i do waste oodles of time yakking with fellow plebes on the net.

still wondering if you got the point of the novel...

[Unregistered]

nope, no tv. but i do waste oodles of time yakking with fellow plebes on the net.

So did you decide not to own a tv to prevent Big Brother from watching you?

still wondering if you got the point of the novel...

And I'm still wondering if you know how a tv works. Here's a clue: You watch the tv; the tv doesn't watch you. Get it?

[Unregistered]

clearly you either haven't read it or didn't understand it. if you're trying to be cute about the tv, it isn't that funny and comes off as evasive in the silliest way possible. i suspect all you know about Orwell is what you've been told by others.

[Unregistered]

if you're trying to be cute about the tv, it isn't that funny and comes off as evasive in the silliest way possible.

We are discussing the web site that lists owning a tv as fulfilling one of Orwell's prophecies. If you care to read the previous posts you will understand. Do I have to post the statement from the web site?

[Unregistered]

Is there anyone out there who read the book? I really don't want to talk to people who get their ideas of literature from reading television. Tom, since the other folks here don't seem to have read the book, maybe you could tell me what you think the theme is. Any tips on teaching the book. Despite what the monoglots would have it, I don't see any way around drawing comparisons to our times, which would necesarily lead to political discussion. I know that there are scary people out there paying students to record teachers for daring to question the empire. Is it safe to teach Orwell in an Orwellian society?

[Unregistered]

I always teach theme as two oppossing universal forces. Ergo: individual freedom versus high tech plutocracy. Further: the only hope is the plebians, which means there is no hope because the plebes are too willing to serve even without the brainwashing. I'd say teach Orwell, name the offenders, and let the chips fall.
Interesting use of the "monoglot" term. Not sure I've ever seen it applied to mean those incapable of communication because of jingoism, but it had to happen sooner or later. Did you coin a phrase?
I do hope we don't get a rash or responses from monoglots who haven't read Orwell and wouldn't understand him if they were forced to do so (survey course?).

[Unregistered]

Could you two possibly become any more arrogant?

The meaning of 1984 is (get this) open to interpretation. You are not only dismissing those that don't see the same parallels as you do, you insult them.

And that is exactly the type of treatment your students will get if they dare disagree with your political views, which is why I have stated many times that too many public school teachers have little ability to teach politics in an objective manner. Clearly you have little respect for opposing viewpoints, so how could you possibly grade them fairly?

"Okay, I agree with you 100%. Orwell was a prophet. We live in a society just like Orwell described in his book. This is proof of the evilness of George W. Bush (which is what this is really about). Now that I agree with your political views, can I finally get my A?"

Not sure I've ever seen it applied to mean those incapable of communication because of jingoism, but it had to happen sooner or later. Did you coin a phrase?

No, he simply misused the word. A monoglot is one that only speaks a single language.

[Unregistered]

Could you be more ignorant? You managed to miss the point entirely. Of course theme is open to discussion. I'm a lit teacher, not a television evangelist! No lit teacher teaches a theme as a single truth. There may be any number of themes applicable.

But, of course you'd have to read the book to form a thematic statement.

Here's a question you can answer without having to read Orwell. What is the difference between someone who cannot read and someone who does not?

[Unregistered]

Could you be more ignorant? You managed to miss the point entirely. Of course theme is open to discussion. I'm a lit teacher, not a television evangelist!

Actually, you come across as a political evangelist.

But let me take one statement in particular:

Despite what the monoglots would have it, I don't see any way around drawing comparisons to our times, which would necesarily lead to political discussion.

I compared the book to modern times and found that there was little significant correlation. Go ahead and deny it and I will post the quotes.

1984 is a controversial book and people have argued its merits. Some of the debate is scholarly and beneficial. But the practice of insulting those that fail to see the correlation to modern society is disgraceful.

I am not talking about theme. We know what George Orwell was trying to convey. That is your discussion. Whether or not George Orwell was prophetic is another matter. No, I don't think he was prophetic to any significant extent. In fact, I find most of the comparisons people make to modern-day society fairly laughable. Sorry if that bothers you.

[Unregistered]

I don't understand how you can find "little correlation" especially in this day of things like "The Patriot Act." I'm baffled.

Also, I've gone through all of these posts and don't see anywhere someone calling Orwell a prophet. I think many realize that this is not prophetic, but it is designed to make us think about culture. (In fact I think I read somewhere that Orwell simply wanted readers of this book to think.)

Finally, I find flaw with your TV/radio comparison. Afterall hind sight is 20/20. While many homes at the time the book was written did have radio (as you have pointed out many a time) to suggest that they would all have TV is a very different argument. I think in doing so one fails to see social class distinctions at that time. I bet asking someone then if they'd have a TV in their home while they might have WANTED one, getting one was a very different issue.

I can't help but think, as I read your posts if you are confusing this book (1984) with Fahrenheit 451... a book where the issue of TV is much more prevelant. Again, another book designed to make us think about social and cultural constructs; How culture is formed, what affects culture and who influences culture.

You have said that you read the book ONCE. I've found that to truly understand a book more than one reading is needed.

[Unregistered]

I am an 11th grade English teacher, and I had to fight the board to teach this novel this year. It had been kicked out of the curriculum, but I believe it is such a great book that EVERYONE should read it.

I am teaching it now.. and the kids love it!

In today's America, I think one of the most important books a student could read is Orwell's "1984." I'm not a teacher, but I do have the greatest respect for them. Could anyone tell me how frequently this book is used in today's high schools?

Thank you.

[Unregistered]

I don't understand how you can find "little correlation" especially in this day of things like "The Patriot Act." I'm baffled.

You have said that you read the book ONCE. I've found that to truly understand a book more than one reading is needed.

Actually, I've never read the book. But I know all about it from people I know who have told me. I don't have time for fantasy books like this. And I object to any book that brings students to question our leaders in this time when they need all of our support. I don't understand how you can question "The Patriot Act". Our great leader has taken these measures to protect us. Ideas can harm us more that WMD's. How can you be against an act for patriots?

[Unregistered]

I don't understand how you can find "little correlation" especially in this day of things like "The Patriot Act." I'm baffled.

Rather than merely mentioning the Patriot Act, why not describe why you think it is Orwellian. Maybe we can compare it to McCarthyism to see how truly Orwellian we are today in comparison.

Orwell described a world where people were continuously monitored in order to control their thoughts. So equating any lack of privacy with being Orwellian is simply an overstatement.

Why wasn't Orwell invoked before 1988, the year in which the Video Privacy Protection Act was passed? Before 1988 the government could look at a person's video tape rental record; now it cannot. So why wasn't it pre-1988 Orwellian?

Orwell is always invoked by those who disagree with the current government. It is becoming a cliche. Don't like police using radar? Orwell!! Orwell!! Don't want credit card companies selling information about you? 1984!! 1984!! Don't like Bush? The Patriot Act is Orwellian!! You get the picture.

The only issue today that compares to Orwell is political correctness, which "outlaws" a certain way of thinking. With political correctness, a person can be fired because he thinks a certain way. But to even call political correctness Orwellian is a stretch.

The world described by Orwell is very much unlike what we live in today. In fact, Victorian England, with its emphasis on morals and lack of privacy, was probably more Orwellian.... well, that is if you equate a lack of privacy with being Orwellian.

Also, I've gone through all of these posts and don't see anywhere someone calling Orwell a prophet.

You didn't see the link to Orwell's supposed prophecies?

Finally, I find flaw with your TV/radio comparison. Afterall hind sight is 20/20. While many homes at the time the book was written did have radio (as you have pointed out many a time) to suggest that they would all have TV is a very different argument.

The point is that nearly every home had a radio when Orwell wrote his book, so why is owning a television such a big deal? (Remember, this was the point made by the web site -- a silly argument, but not one that I furthered.)

I can't help but think, as I read your posts if you are confusing this book (1984) with Fahrenheit 451... a book where the issue of TV is much more prevelant.

I am not that familiar with Fahrenheit 451, but I have read 1984. Sorry, but I am not confusing the two.

You have said that you read the book ONCE. I've found that to truly understand a book more than one reading is needed.

Maybe I have better skills in reading comprehension.

[Unregistered]

Why wasn't Orwell invoked before 1988, the year in which the Video Privacy Protection Act was passed? blah blah blah
Maybe I have better skills in reading comprehension.

I can't think of a single year that Orwell's book has not inspired individual's concerned with protecting freedom to compare our technologically sophisticated, increasingly global government with "1984". Your comment is protective of the currrent regime to the point of a sad paranoia. You missed the point of Orwell's novel and the attempts to enlighten on this site not simply because you only read the book once. In order to learn from the book, you'll have to drop your hyper-defensive posture long enough for one or two new thoughts to penetrate the veil.

[Unregistered]

I can't think of a single year that Orwell's book has not inspired individual's concerned with protecting freedom to compare our technologically sophisticated, increasingly global government with "1984".

In other words, people have been crying wolf for a very long time.

Your comment is protective of the currrent regime to the point of a sad paranoia.

Let me get this straight: You are crying "1984" for every societal change that comes down the pike, and yet you call me paranoid? I'm not the one paranoid of government watching my every move, or trying to control my thoughts.

You missed the point of Orwell's novel and the attempts to enlighten on this site not simply because you only read the book once. In order to learn from the book, you'll have to drop your hyper-defensive posture long enough for one or two new thoughts to penetrate the veil.

I read the same words you did. The difference is that I don't use fictional sources as tools for debate. George Orwell was a fine writer who had some interesting ideas about what the future would look like. But 1984 is still a work of fiction. I suggest you try and separate fantasy from reality.

[Be Just]

Orwell was not talking about the future. He made it pretty clear that he was describing a process that was already in full swing at the time the book was written. Orwell had been an idealist, but by the time of the Second World War, he had become quite cynical about power. He believed that the world is controlled by a select group of powerful people and that what we get through the media is a construct. If that is even remotely true, then the wrangling over which of the recent U.S. administrations was or is most Orwellian is an exercise in futility. That farm was sold before most of us were born, according to Orwell.
I will say this, once you accept the possiblity, just the possiblity, that Orwell's description is reality, you will never read (or watch) the news in the same way. And that, I think, is all we can ask from Orwell or any writer who challenges us to think (and discuss). There will always be those who cannot or will not allow thoughts so clearly unsettling to shake the beliefs they hold. Anyone who can read Orwell and not be shaken is not going to be moved by anything that anyone can write or say. If you are one of those, you should simply state that you are unwilling to entertain the thought that authority is untrustworthy. I respect people of such faith. I almost envy them. How much easier my life would be if I could trust authority.
When I read Orwell (among many disturbing modern writers) with students, I always begin with this caveat. "Those of you who are persons of faith are not going to like this book. The writer intends to assault your faith." Those students can choose alternate texts (I keep C.S. Lewis and Tolkien on hand). They are not going to participate fully in any reading or discussion that asks them to question that which they have already determined should never be questioned.
It is easy to be confrontive about faith when we are in college, but when you are a teacher confronting the wide eyed innocence of the average high school student, cynicism feels way out of place. I want my students to be exposed to the great ideas of modern literature, but I don't want to hasten their loss of faith either. I wish I could share the childlike faith in authority. I also understand the frustration that those who believe that Orwell was right, the world is a fallen place ruled by tyrants and the only way out is for ordinary people to stop giving away their power. Orwell concluded by warning that the ordinary people will never stop believing in the myths woven by their masters. In that case, let the dreamers dream.

[Unregistered]

I do not share your complacency, Be Just. I don't think Tolkien or Lewis did either. While Lewis is known for his fanciful Narnia tales, his Space Trilogy is far closer to Orwell than to the light hearted fancy most people connect to Lewis. While your tone is conciliatory, you hint that people of faith are delusional. It is possible to be a person of faith without degenerating into someone who believes in the wild fantasies passing as current events. I believe that God is good and that man has a purpose. It does not therefore follow that I believe the representatives of oil hungry corporations are invading oil rich nations to bring them democracy.

[Unregistered]

If you are one of those, you should simply state that you are unwilling to entertain the thought that authority is untrustworthy.

Do you extend the same untrustworthiness to your union authorities?

The problem I have with your stance, Be Just, is that you disguise your arrogance with a conciliatory tone. But your contempt for those that dare to disagree with your political stance is quite clear. For example:

Anyone who can read Orwell and not be shaken is not going to be moved by anything that anyone can write or say.

That is absurd! People are moved in different ways, or sometimes not at all, whenever they encounter another person's viewpoint. I am not moved by Orwell's vision because I don't share your (seemingly cynical) view of the world and current events.

That doesn't mean I don't find Orwell's views interesting and thought-provoking. He raises a lot of questions in our minds. My issue with many of you is that you claim to know the answers, and those that come up with different answers simply didn't "get it."

This is what troubles me about how some teach literature: the complete inability to understand each student's background and viewpoint and how they should react. Instead, we reward those that react how WE react.

[Unregistered]

This is what troubles me about how some teach literature: the complete inability to understand each student's background and viewpoint and how they should react. Instead, we reward those that react how WE react.

Do you teach literature? How do you come by your knowledge of "how some teach literature"?

[Unregistered]

Do you teach literature? How do you come by your knowledge of "how some teach literature"?

As part of my duties, I regularly observe teachers, including ELA teachers, at my school.

[Unregistered]

So, let me get this straight. You don't teach literature; don't have a degree in that discipline, and yet have been given a mandate to evaluate literature teachers?
Furthermore, in this school site where you have so much power, there are literature teachers who reward those students who turn in essays with idealogically approved positions, and in contrast, those students who turn in well written opposing views are punished?
Interesting scenario, but far from the norm.

[Unregistered]

So, let me get this straight. You don't teach literature; don't have a degree in that discipline, and yet have been given a mandate to evaluate literature teachers?

Yes, because my focus is not on lesson content, but rather technique. My observations about literature teachers that I stated in here are just that, personal observations.

Furthermore, in this school site where you have so much power, there are literature teachers who reward those students who turn in essays with idealogically approved positions, and in contrast, those students who turn in well written opposing views are punished?

Yes, I have seen these practices many times. It is hardly unusual. Some teachers simply struggle to separate their own political philosophies from their teaching responsibilities.

Ask any college student how difficult it is to pass some classes because of the personal bias of the teacher. The same shows up at the high school level as well. Teachers who agree with the political philosophies of the teacher have a harder time recognizing it, of course.

I also saw the same thing with regards to a history class about a month ago. Those students who turned in essays on the second amendment that agreed with the teachers' stances on gun control got better grades. We even had some parents complain about the bias.

Given that teachers are human, and are often highly politically opinionated, it would be nearly impossible for this not to show up.

Interesting scenario, but far from the norm.

In your experience, it is far form the norm. Not in mine.

[Unregistered]

Well, cleary we are not talking about "experience" here at all. You are arguing from the position of a current movement to try to reform our educational institutions to be more accepting of faith based world views. You will bring up whatever subjective experiences you have had to bolster that arguement.

[Unregistered]

Well, cleary we are not talking about "experience" here at all. You are arguing from the position of a current movement to try to reform our educational institutions to be more accepting of faith based world views.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... we have heard this song before.

Your assertion is purely ad hominem and a complete affront to rational argumentation. If you don't want to believe me, then say so. But cut the personal attacks. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a member of an underground conspiracy.

[Unregistered]

I sure wish I had a math teacher to tell me how to teach literature at my high school.

[Unregistered]

It doesn't take a Lit teacher to recognize obvious bias and unfair grading. The notion that only Lit teachers can recognize good and bad teaching practices in another Lit class is complete nonsense.

[Unregistered]

Just out of curiosity what was the school's verdict on the complaints about bias? I have found that when students take an "opposing" view, to mine, or the popular view of their classmates, their essays often don't do well, NOT because their opinion differs, but because of lack of factual evidence. I often go into persuasive essays saying, "Change my mind." My students will tell you that I have never failed anyone because of a different opinion, but have because of bad writing. How do they know? They can look at my rubric.

On this idea of the "norm,” and how these egregious teaching sins are committed in your school on a normal basis…. If your colleagues are so incompetent, why continue to work there? After all, I look to my colleagues for support, ideas and inspiration. It sounds like yours, at least in the English Dept., are duds.

I'd like to get back to the original issue for a moment, the novel 1984. Were you one of my students and you wrote an essay that the novel was not important I would not fail you for a dissenting opinion; I would be looking for your evidence. However, I would also feel bad. I would feel as if I had not done my job, failed you as it were, to show you the beauty in the subtlety of the writing. The power that fiction, yes fiction has. (I bring this up as you keep harping on the fact that it is a piece of fiction - FYI - most of what ELA teachers teach, is fiction.)

Oh, and finally, you scolded someone for a personal attack, well I feel VERY attacked, insulted and offended by your comment that perhaps you have better reading comprehension skills simply because I suggested a second of a novel. Immature and petty. I wasn't commenting on your reading skills; I was commenting on perception, experience, and all the other wonderful things that allow us to change, mature and see the world through a different lens. I am interested if you would have made the same type of comment if I had suggested watching a presidential speech for a second time, reviewing a movie or reading the bible for a second time?

[Tom Tuttle]

In answer to the last poster, I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I cannot imagine that any Literature teacher worth her salt would take issue with you. As for the lady who is upsetting you, I say, consider the source. This is a math teacher who feels (for some reason) qualified to enter any classroom to tell the teacher how to do the job (conceivably she is far more capable than the university education which led to the credential).

[Unregistered]

Just out of curiosity what was the school's verdict on the complaints about bias?

That I don't know.

I have found that when students take an "opposing" view, to mine, or the popular view of their classmates, their essays often don't do well, NOT because their opinion differs, but because of lack of factual evidence.

Except it is very easy for a teacher to subconsciously demand more evidence for contrary views. The reason is obvious. As teachers, how do we know we are not falling into this trap?

For example, when I said I found little correlation of 1984 to modern society you said you found my argument baffling. What kind of counterargument is that? You didn't provide any evidence to back your assertion. Instead, you just derisively dismissed it with the word "baffled." That doesn't sound like the approach of a subjective, rational argument to me.

I often go into persuasive essays saying, "Change my mind."

Isn't that almost tantamount to demanding more substantation from those that disagree with you? What if a student agrees with you? Are they going to have to support their arguments to the same extent?

Maybe in your class all is well. I certainly have no way of knowing one way or the other. But I think you can see how easy it is for teachers to think they are grading objectively while, at the same time, demanding more from those with differing opinions. As humans, it is difficult for us not to.

My students will tell you that I have never failed anyone because of a different opinion, but have because of bad writing. How do they know? They can look at my rubric.

Students are not the best judges, because many have little power to speak up. Those that do usually do nothing more than complain to their parents.

Again, if you grade objectively then I have no argument with you. But do you really think that all teachers out there are as careful as you?

Just read the posts in this thread. Because I disagreed on the meaning of Orwell, some posters resorted to blatant character attacks and insults. I think anyone that has such a deep emotional attachment to the meaning of a piece of literature is going to have a hard time grading fairly.

On this idea of the "norm,” and how these egregious teaching sins are committed in your school on a normal basis…. If your colleagues are so incompetent, why continue to work there? After all, I look to my colleagues for support, ideas and inspiration. It sounds like yours, at least in the English Dept., are duds.

Strange question, but I will answer it. My teaching career doesn't revolve around the Lit teachers at my campus.

I'd like to get back to the original issue for a moment, the novel 1984. Were you one of my students and you wrote an essay that the novel was not important...

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about. I never said it wasn't important. That is your biased interpretation of my opinion on the meaning of 1984. How can you possibly grade me fairly when you put words in my mouth that I never wrote?

Just because a piece of work is fiction doesn't make it unimportant. But it does tell us a lot about how serious we should use it to substantiate arguments. We don't use movie plots to back our arguments; we shouldn't use novels either.

Oh, and finally, you scolded someone for a personal attack, well I feel VERY attacked, insulted and offended by your comment that perhaps you have better reading comprehension skills simply because I suggested a second of a novel. Immature and petty.

Let's go back to what you wrote earlier:

You have said that you read the book ONCE. I've found that to truly understand a book more than one reading is needed.

In other words, I must not be "getting it" because I haven't read the novel to the extent you have. This just the familiar arrogant, and patronizing, statement that those who have the gall to disagree simply must not "get it." I have had enough of that pompous art noveau baloney to last a lifetime.

I wasn't commenting on your reading skills; I was commenting on perception, experience, and all the other wonderful things that allow us to change, mature and see the world through a different lens.

As soon as you view 1984 from my stance, get back to me. Or is it your lens we must look through?

[Unregistered]

This is a math teacher who feels (for some reason) qualified to enter any classroom to tell the teacher how to do the job (conceivably she is far more capable than the university education which led to the credential).

Actually, it isn't that I "feel" qualified, I am qualified (as defined by the district).

[Unregistered]

I have come to realize that some people on this site are just "black and white" when it comes to discussions... when talking about literature there needs to be "gray." For example - one poster asks about working with teachers who aren't good, and the responder takes it to mean just ELA teachers, I don't think that was the intention, and to think it was is very "black and white", as oppossed to looking at the big picture, seeing the big intention. Again, that same poster responded about being qualified - yes by the standards, but not in EVERY content area, yes? Or am I confused?

Several times people have accused others of one thing and then done it themselves. I noticed this on the "don't put words into my mouth" segment of the posts written above. One person says, don't do it to me, and then does it to that person they are accusing...with the whole reading comp. thing... Assuming what the person meant by their comment.

Another thing I've noticed.... some people are looking for full fleged "persuasive essays" on this site. Such chat situations are not true "academic discussion" because body language and tone is omitted.

Finally, people like to attack. I thought this was a place to share ideas, and be, well, teachers in arms. I don't get that feeling and therefore will never be on this page again. SO, don't bother responding to my questions, consider them rehtorical.... reflection is always good.

[Unregistered]

I have come to realize that some people on this site are just "black and white" when it comes to discussions... when talking about literature there needs to be "gray." For example - one poster asks about working with teachers who aren't good, and the responder takes it to mean just ELA teachers, I don't think that was the intention, and to think it was is very "black and white", as oppossed to looking at the big picture, seeing the big intention. Again, that same poster responded about being qualified - yes by the standards, but not in EVERY content area, yes? Or am I confused?

You are confused.

First, the criticisms of my role as a classroom coach centered around the fact that I was critiquing lessons delivered by Literature teachers. The fact that my role as a coach focuses on general teaching practices -- not lesson content -- got completely ignored. As I said before, my awareness of unfair grading came about simply because I saw it, not because I was looking for it as part of my official duties.

And yes, I am qualified to observe, evaluate, and provide feedback for all lessons on campus. But that is because my duties, again, rely exclusively on general teaching practices.

Several times people have accused others of one thing and then done it themselves. I noticed this on the "don't put words into my mouth" segment of the posts written above. One person says, don't do it to me, and then does it to that person they are accusing...with the whole reading comp. thing... Assuming what the person meant by their comment.

I have been insulted numerous times in this thread simply for disagreeing with the popular opinion about the meaning of 1984, yet you didn't seem to bother mentioning any of those instances.

How do you feel about someone who writes the following?

You are arguing from the position of a current movement to try to reform our educational institutions to be more accepting of faith based world views.

Is that the sort of rational argument you are seeking?

Finally, people like to attack. I thought this was a place to share ideas, and be, well, teachers in arms.

It is, unless you share the idea that 1984 is not really that prophetic and doesn't describe modern society very closely.

[Unregistered]

And yes, I am qualified to observe, evaluate, and provide feedback for all lessons on campus. But that is because my duties, again, rely exclusively on general teaching practices.

This would be laughable if it weren't so pitiful. Could you be more full of yourself?

Why don't we just eliminate university teacher training and put Lisa in charge? In case you haven't thought of it yet, there's a reason why high school subjects are taught be experts in the field, not by general ed. teachers. Your claim that you are somehow "qualified" to correct the practices of professionals who have undergone 18 years of training is just sad. Do you ever wonder why so many teachers treat have no respect for your "expertise"?

If this situation actually exists outside of Lisa's little ego fantasy, it has to be a case of cronyism along the lines of putting a lottery salesman in charge of FEMA and then wondering why all heck breaks loose.

[Unregistered]

Lisa, your "analysis" of "1984" (you've yet to make a substantive remark) is proof to all with even a cursory knowledge of literary criticism that you are completely unqualified to even discuss literature let alone evaluate teachers in that discipline. And by the way, this has nothing to do with the way we deal with ignorance in the classroom. Unless, of course, we happen to have a high school student who claims expertise beyond that of all of the literature teachers in the house. So don't go crying about how our dismissal of your shabby attempt at sounding like you understand Orwell is a reflection of how we deal with 15 year olds who, unlike you, mainly come to us to learn, not to preach about subjects they no nothing about.

[Unregistered]

last line should read "know nothing" or "no knowthing"

[Unregistered]

In today's America, I think one of the most important books a student could read is Orwell's "1984." I'm not a teacher, but I do have the greatest respect for them. Could anyone tell me how frequently this book is used in today's high schools?

Thank you.

well, in my high school it's read during a students sophomore year, whether they are on the standard or advanced diploma. i believe that reading something that challenges the students mind helps to prepare them for higher education.

[Unregistered]

In today's America, I think one of the most important books a student could read is Orwell's "1984." I'm not a teacher, but I do have the greatest respect for them. Could anyone tell me how frequently this book is used in today's high schools?

Thank you.

well, in my high school it's read during a students sophomore year, whether they are on the standard or advanced diploma. i believe that reading something that challenges the students mind helps to prepare them for higher education.

i am unaware of how often it's used in today's high schools though.

[Unregistered]

In my high school we also teach 1984, but it is at the discretion of the teacher. We have a very strong department and we help one another but also respect the autonomy of each teacher. We had a principal who responded to the "test score scares" by emphasizing methodology over content. She is gone, and we are grateful. Even at the worst time, however, having a math teacher trying to instruct literature teachers would have been unimaginable. I agree that the literary criticism offered by this individual is proof of her lack of qualification. The idea that you can master a text in one reading would stupify a third year literature major. And he seems to have no idea of what the book is about, offering merely political defenses instead of substnative commentary about the text. Math and literature are worlds apart, not only in content, but in methodology and the basic approach to knowledge.

[Unregistered]

This would be laughable if it weren't so pitiful. Could you be more full of yourself?

You need to pick up the argument with my district. They determine who is or isn't qualified, and they are the ones that hired me to perform these actions.

Why don't we just eliminate university teacher training and put Lisa in charge? In case you haven't thought of it yet, there's a reason why high school subjects are taught be experts in the field, not by general ed.

Experts?!?! Experts?!?!? Give me a break! A four-year degree and a teaching credential does not make one an expert. It doesn't even guarantee competence. And working year after year doesn't necessarily guarantee that the teacher will improve in his or her skills. Some do; some just get steadily worse.

You think that you are so talented that no one can help you improve. Now THAT is being "full of yourself."

Your claim that you are somehow "qualified" to correct the practices of professionals who have undergone 18 years of training is just sad. Do you ever wonder why so many teachers treat have no respect for your "expertise"?

Where you are getting this 18 years of training figure? The last time I looked, a college degree took four years, and the credential program amounted to nothing. (Few teachers I have spoken with thought their credential program taught them how to teach.)

If this situation actually exists outside of Lisa's little ego fantasy, it has to be a case of cronyism along the lines of putting a lottery salesman in charge of FEMA and then wondering why all heck breaks loose.

Tell it to the district that hired me to perform this training.

[Unregistered]

Lisa, your "analysis" of "1984" (you've yet to make a substantive remark) is proof to all with even a cursory knowledge of literary criticism that you are completely unqualified to even discuss literature let alone evaluate teachers in that discipline.

In other words, my interpration of the meaning of 1984 disagrees with yours, so I must be wrong. This is exactly the arrogance I mentioned in my previous post.

[Unregistered]

We had a principal who responded to the "test score scares" by emphasizing methodology over content.

You don't emphasize one over the other. You emphasize both. Do you agree, yes or no?

She is gone, and we are grateful. Even at the worst time, however, having a math teacher trying to instruct literature teachers would have been unimaginable.

Again, we seem to be having problems with reading comprehension, so I will say it again:

I don't evaluate lesson content when I coach teachers.

Let me post it again:

I don't evaluate lesson content when I coach teachers.

I look for general teaching practices. For example, I look for questioning strategies, cognitive strategies, SDAIE strategies, time-on-task, and so on. For example, if a teacher spends five minutes trying to quiet the class at the beginning of class, I offer strategies for reducing that time-off-task.

I was chosen for this position because I picked up on the teacher training faster than anyone else on campus.

You don't have to be a LIT teacher to appreciate, and evaluate, the use of these teaching practices. And any teacher who is so arrogant to think that only those who graduated from college in their subject area can offer advice on teaching practices probably isn't going to improve his or her teaching skills.

[Unregistered]

In other words, my interpration of the meaning of 1984 disagrees with yours, so I must be wrong. This is exactly the arrogance I mentioned in my previous post.

I don't recall that you ever offered any interpretation. You simply took issue with those teachers who draw a parallel with current events and those in the plot line. What is your interpretation of 1984?

By the way, it is too bad that someone who has so little respect for education is given authority over teachers. If you honestly think that the the 12 years of public education, the 6 years of university, and the 22 years of experience are as nothing as compared to what you can give, you are either suffering from dilusions of grandeur or you believe education (sans Lisa) is a waste of anyone's time.

[Unregistered]

If you honestly think that the the 12 years of public education, the 6 years of university, and the 22 years of experience are as nothing as compared to what you can give, you are either suffering from dilusions of grandeur or you believe education (sans Lisa) is a waste of anyone's time.

I don't know who lisa is, but i totally agree with your statement. All this teacher training is just so much gimmickry, another dog and pony show to give administrators a way to justify their phoney-baloney job. I've always felt insulted by having to take a day from my students to sit and listen to some "expert" tell a room full of credentialed teachers with credentials and university educations how to do their job according to the latest theory. Give us a break! Teachers are the experts, and these training days are not going to make or break teacher quality. Good old experience coupled with a burning desire to excel is the magic formula. Thanks for giving me a cogent explanation of what I've intuitively felt but never put into words before.

[Unregistered]

Teachers are the experts, and these training days are not going to make or break teacher quality. Good old experience coupled with a burning desire to excel is the magic formula.

We have 20-year veterans on our campus that cannot even get their classrooms under control, and you're telling me we should just leave them alone because they are experts?

Go to a school that is habitually underperforming and sit in on some of the classrooms. You will be shocked. You will also find very little correlation between the teacher's experience and their teaching skills. Most of the low test scores on our campus come from the classes taught by veterans, despite the fact that they are usually given the more attractive teaching assignments.

Our school received training and it made a world of difference, at least to those of us with good attitudes towards the training. Naturally those that resisted didn't learn a **** thing, and they never will.

Some training is better than others, obviously. But every training I ever attended taught me something useful. I look forward to the next training.

Good old experience coupled with a burning desire to excel is the magic formula.

Which is why our students are such scholars.

What's funny is that everyone accuses me of acting like a know-it-all, and here is someone who thinks teachers are above learning from someone else.

[Unregistered]

By the way, it is too bad that someone who has so little respect for education is given authority over teachers.

I am not sure what lack of respect for education you are talking about.

[Unregistered]

I am not sure what lack of respect for education you are talking about.

If you worked in a factory that made airplane parts but you believed the parts were inherently faulty, why would you continue to work there? You don't believe that a teacher, someone drawn to education, who spent a great deal of their lives learning in school, is educated enough to be trusted in a classroom. Why would you continue working in education if you believe that schools are incapable of producing someone who can teach a child to read or add?

[Unregistered]

If you worked in a factory that made airplane parts but you believed the parts were inherently faulty, why would you continue to work there?

Would quitting make the airplane parts better?

If so, then I would quit. But if not, then explain why I should quit.

You don't believe that a teacher, someone drawn to education, who spent a great deal of their lives learning in school, is educated enough to be trusted in a classroom.

Some are; some aren't.

I would be more inclined to agree with you if (1) education majors didn't score so low on standardized tests, (2) teacher-ed programs taught future teachers how to teach, (3) the exams required to gain a teaching credential were actually rigorous, (4) teachers were given a set of standards of teaching excellence that they were required to achieve and maintain.

The notion that a teaching credential guarantees a good teacher is utter nonsense. I have seen too many counterexamples to this claim.

Why would you continue working in education if you believe that schools are incapable of producing someone who can teach a child to read or add?

Again, it goes back to my question, "Why would I quit?" You haven't explained that.

[Unregistered]

Okay, so you don't mind working in an industry which produces a substandard product at its highest level of accomplishment. I'm with you on that. My real question is: what makes you think you can get ahold of that product and change it? In other words, if you are correct in your belief that teachers are ineffective because the system that produces them is broken, do you really believe you can fix the teachers? How are you going to do that? Inservices? Observations? Or do you just want to harrass and complain?

[Unregistered]

Okay, so you don't mind working in an industry which produces a substandard product at its highest level of accomplishment.

What's the alternative? I suppose working for a school that has its act together and produces high student achievement. But I would be blamed for that too.

Your entire argument about quit-when-the-going-gets-tough is pointless.

I'm with you on that. My real question is: what makes you think you can get ahold of that product and change it? In other words, if you are correct in your belief that teachers are ineffective because the system that produces them is broken, do you really believe you can fix the teachers? How are you going to do that? Inservices? Observations? Or do you just want to harrass and complain?

In-Services. Observations. (And yes, I have helped many teachers become better at my school site, just like other teachers have helped me become better. Some simply refuse to get better.)

Thanks for asking.

[Unregistered]

Some simply refuse to get better.)Thanks for asking.

I'm curious as to how much of the "simple refuse" is a reaction to your egotistical preachiness, which is a real turn off. Also, the expression of thanks is really a precious sharing between people and using it as a point of sarcasm is a nasty turn on a lovely phrase. If you really are the fount of wisdom in all things education that you paint yourself as, you might actually do some good if you learned to at least present yourself with a modicum of humility. I don't know that wisdom and self-agrandizement are ever found in the same body though. All the teachers I know are happy to get any help they can find, but I don't know any humans who actually like to be talked down to. I suspect the only ones who gratify your sense of your own importance are the untenured teachers who are afraid of losing their jobs. Which, come to think of it, would explain your attacks on tenure and unions.

[Unregistered]

I'm curious as to how much of the "simple refuse" is a reaction to your egotistical preachiness, which is a real turn off.

Oh, so you know how I discuss these issues with my teachers? You have heard my conversations with them?

Don't assume that I openly share my views with my fellow teachers, because I don't.

Also, the expression of thanks is really a precious sharing between people and using it as a point of sarcasm is a nasty turn on a lovely phrase.

My apologies to all the offended romanticists in the world. (How's that for sarcasm?)

If you really are the fount of wisdom in all things education that you paint yourself as...

Hmmm.... "And yes, I have helped many teachers become better at my school site, just like other teachers have helped me become better."

... you might actually do some good if you learned to at least present yourself with a modicum of humility.

And it would help if you quit pandering to members of your own profession and admit some of the problems that you see around you.

I don't know that wisdom and self-agrandizement are ever found in the same body though. All the teachers I know are happy to get any help they can find, but I don't know any humans who actually like to be talked down to. I suspect the only ones who gratify your sense of your own importance are the untenured teachers who are afraid of losing their jobs. Which, come to think of it, would explain your attacks on tenure and unions.

If all you can do to refute my arguments is to rely on personal attacks, then you have a very weak argument indeed. And did you really think you would score any logical points by complaining about my use of the words "Thank you?" Give me a break! Argue the issues, not the personalities.

[Unregistered]

Here's the issue: people do not learn from jerks. How's that for name calling. Even the most backwards management programs teach their people not to portray themselves as know it alls. My point is that nobody listens to you because you lack personality. No surprise that you don't see the connection though.

[Unregistered]

If all you can do to refute my arguments is to rely on personal attacks, then you have a very weak argument indeed. And did you really think you would score any logical points by complaining about my use of the words "Thank you?" Give me a break! Argue the issues, not the personalities.

This reads like an exerpt from one of those kooky right wing talk shows. The text is littered with personal attacks and the writer accused the person who asks whether her attitude might be part of the problem is accussed of hurting her little feelings. Oh, this is Lisa again. You should change the TV channel, Lisa, your arguments are getting so old!

[Unregistered]

Even the most backwards management programs teach their people not to portray themselves as know it alls.

For the umpteenth time, you have no idea how I relate with my colleagues. You simply don't.

[Unregistered]

This reads like an exerpt from one of those kooky right wing talk shows. The text is littered with personal attacks and the writer accused the person who asks whether her attitude might be part of the problem is accussed of hurting her little feelings.

Who said anything about hurt feelings? I am just pointing out that focusing on my personality is a rotten way to argue a point.

And where are all the personal attacks I have made against anyone in this forum?

Oh, this is Lisa again. You should change the TV channel, Lisa, your arguments are getting so old!

Do you even have an argument?

[Unregistered]

no real argument here. among others, i simply question your right or ability to judge the value of any teacher since you appear to lack the basics of simple self reflection, a fundamental asset of any real human communication. you are the argument expert. but teacher training is not a good place for arguers to hang about looking for recognition. nor do you seem to be getting much of that recognition, which you seem to crave, on this site.

[Unregistered]

Lisa is crying now (again) that she is being personally attacked. She claims that her continued attacks on teachers and the unions that protect them are her personal ideals. Sorry, but it just seems to coincidental that the thousands of words she has written here attacking our profession are simply a result of a personal ideal. The far right is spending millions in the cause of disabling open discussion in education, just as they (successfully) did with the "liberal media". The purpose of scripted teaching, standardized testing, administrative oversight, ect. is to find a backdoor to getting rid of the right to free speech in the classroom. These highly organized spin merchants must discredit teachers first. Though we are at the top of the professions trusted by the public, they seek to undermine that trust by planting the myth of the "bad teacher" and misrepresenting our unions as unAmerican activities. If you read back on earlier posts, you will find Lisa, and her ilk, have toned down their attacks somewhat, now claiming to simply be concerned for the quality of teaching. They are not concerned with quality but they do seek control. It is not enough to control all three branches of government and to own huge blocks of media, they must get control over the mind of the public to accomplish their heinous ambition of establishing an Iran-like theocracy in the U.S.

[Unregistered]

Read the above post quickly. The editors (censors) will purge it when they see it. This site is monitored, if not sponsered by the far right.

[Unregistered]

Lisa is crying now (again) that she is being personally attacked.

Once again, someone demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension. Let's try this once again: "Who said anything about hurt feelings? I am just pointing out that focusing on my personality is a rotten way to argue a point.

She claims that her continued attacks on teachers and the unions that protect them are her personal ideals. Sorry, but it just seems to coincidental that the thousands of words she has written here attacking our profession are simply a result of a personal ideal.

Coincidental of what?

The rest of the conspiracy argument isn't worth discussing, although I found it rather humorous, especially the part about the Iranian theocracy.

[Unregistered]

no real argument here. among others, i simply question your right or ability to judge the value of any teacher since you appear to lack the basics of simple self reflection, a fundamental asset of any real human communication.

If I was using my posts in this forum to relate to my colleagues, you would be right. But I don't; so you're not.

And at what point have you self-reflected in this thread?

you are the argument expert. but teacher training is not a good place for arguers to hang about looking for recognition. nor do you seem to be getting much of that recognition, which you seem to crave, on this site.

How about taking a statement I have made and using (get this) logic, facts, and evidence, demonstrate that it is wrong. Or, at least formulate a contrary opinion that doesn't rest on my personality to support. Could you do that?

[Unregistered]

How are you able to recognize one user from another. Nobody has a username, but people are addressing a Lisa who rises to the bait each time. I'm a bit confused, or have some of you been at this so long you recognize unregistered by the content?

[Unregistered]

They're getting better. It used to be that they would recognize about half of my posts. Now it is up to 75%. For some reason, identifying the poster is much more important in this forum than actually arguing the issues.

[Unregistered]

How about taking a statement I have made and using (get this) logic, facts, and evidence, demonstrate that it is wrong. Or, at least formulate a contrary opinion that doesn't rest on my personality to support. Could you do that?

Lisa has three issues which she beats to death in the same foxnewshost style and therefore does not need a username. Teachers are bad, unions are worse, all authority is inherently correct (thus standardized teaching, which gives someone with no social skills a leg up because she once attended a week long training course).

As to style, the above dodge is a perfect example. Look over the last five pages of her postings. Has she once givven a fact, evidence, or logic? She is presenting what was planted in her head long ago when she discovered a nitch and hasn't looked at a book for a new idea since. Yet, when confronted with an argument that would require either a change in the rhetoric stream or even, heavens forbid, actually considering that her own reasoning is flawed, she resorts to the same tired flailing out at those who disagree with her. Where are your facts? she asks, having presented none of her own. Speak only in pure logic, she demands, having just given four paragraphs of an appeal to authority. This is a personal attack, she cries, having just called the party in question dumb, rotten, or a joke.
In short, anyone who posts here for more than a day or two recognizes Lisa (her former stage name before she became too embarrassed to use it) the same way you recognize the talk show host with the drug problem where she gleans her ideas and personality.

[Unregistered]

Enough of this "Lisa is this, Lisa is that" bs. Just shut up and talk about the issues.

[Unregistered]

I'm guessing whoever wrote that last zinger hit a little too close to home. Nice work, somebody needed to put that arrogant little put down queen in her place.

[Unregistered]

Obviously, you didn't get the message: Talk about the issues!

[Unregistered]

The issue is this. You rant on and on about bad teachers who refuse to learn what you have to teach. I simply point out that they do not learn from you because you have created a defensive posture by your arrogant stance. This hurts your feelings and you project that hurt onto our entire profession, publicly decrying the integrity of our profession simply because your delicate ego has been hurt. In so doing, you feed into the anti teacher mentality that undermines the public trust. You claim to care about education but take care that you do not become the worm in the bowels of the lion. If it were simply that your personality is annoying, I wouldn't bother. But you represent to me the arrogance that sets itself up to judge without reflection upon motive. I have lived a long time and the most heinous acts I have witnessed were always perpetuated by arrogance that attacks from weakness that poses as stregnth. You will accuse me of attacking you. The man I seek to model my life after attacked only one type of human being in his life - those who judge others without compassion. You use the children as your excuse, but I see in your words the anger and pomposity that precedes acts of betrayal and injustice.

[Unregistered]

You rant on and on about bad teachers who refuse to learn what you have to teach.

I never said that. I pointed out that there are bad teachers whose students continuously score poor on state tests and who continually refuse to do anything to get better. These teachers have stated that they have no interest in improving.

And you defend them.

I simply point out that they do not learn from you because you have created a defensive posture by your arrogant stance.

You don't know that. You are making an assumption about how I interact with my colleagues. You have never seen me work with others. In fact, I have never quoted any statement I have ever made to a colleague.

This hurts your feelings and you project that hurt onto our entire profession, publicly decrying the integrity of our profession simply because your delicate ego has been hurt.

This is the third time I will state that my feelings are not hurt in this. I am pointing out that personal attacks (for which your post is yet another) is a lousy way to prove a point.

But apparently that is the only means of argumentation at your disposal.

In so doing, you feed into the anti teacher mentality that undermines the public trust. You claim to care about education but take care that you do not become the worm in the bowels of the lion.

Huh?

If it were simply that your personality is annoying, I wouldn't bother. But you represent to me the arrogance that sets itself up to judge without reflection upon motive. I have lived a long time and the most heinous acts I have witnessed were always perpetuated by arrogance that attacks from weakness that poses as stregnth. You will accuse me of attacking you.

And you do. This post of yours is nothing more than a focus on my personallity, with no attempt to discuss the issues on their own merits.

Okay, you don't like me. You think I'm arrogant. Fine. I don't post here to please you, nor anyone else.

The man I seek to model my life after attacked only one type of human being in his life - those who judge others without compassion. You use the children as your excuse, but I see in your words the anger and pomposity that precedes acts of betrayal and injustice.

Now you resort to insults.

For all the talk about my supposed nastiness, I am not the one that resorts to the bulk of personal attacks and insults in this thread.

But let me ask: Why do you feel compelled to talk about me in this forum? What is your fixation on my personality? Why should I even matter to you?

[Unregistered]

But let me ask: Why do you feel compelled to talk about me in this forum? What is your fixation on my personality? Why should I even matter to you?

Why don't you two just get a room of your own? You go on like a married couple.

[Unregistered]

This is required of all Seniors in my school. We teach novel from a literary perspective and then couple the program with the Government teacher and provide students with that perspective as well. Then students are required to complete a Senior project related to the book that counts toward both subjects. We then celebrate with a DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER PARTY. So far it has been a huge success.

[Unregistered]

We don't use that book anymore. We support our president and do not wish to invite students to question his methods.

We are the United States of America, not some third world dictatorship. Question the system! The only way a democratic nation can function is if its citizens are capable of critical thinking and independent thought. I plan on teaching the book to my seniors this coming year, in a school that is 50% military kids.

[Unregistered]

I'm interested to know more about the Down with Big Brother Party you have after the students finish their projects. What exactly do you do at the party?
Thanks.

[Unregistered]

We are the United States of America, not some third world dictatorship. Question the system! The only way a democratic nation can function is if its citizens are capable of critical thinking and independent thought. I plan on teaching the book to my seniors this coming year, in a school that is 50% military kids.

Don't you people read the news? Our Government is monitoring phone calls, the internet,and other forms of communication. Dissent is no longer safe. You too could wake up on a plane with a bag over your head headed for some foriegn torture camp. Be careful what you say and write because Big Brother is watching you.

[Unregistered]

Our Government is monitoring phone calls, the internet,and other forms of communication. Dissent is no longer safe. You too could wake up on a plane with a bag over your head headed for some foriegn torture camp.

That's right. The US Government can monitor the phone conversations of 260 million people. Forget terrorists, they're mostly interested in the opinions of schoolteachers.

C'mon, be realistic! The government doesn't even have enough manpower to monitor the phone conversations of those they suspect of real crimes.

[Unregistered]

No, but they can very effectively chill dissent by letting us know they can watch us, arrest and hold without trial, and basically act with impunity. That is all Big Brother needs to move forward.

[Unregistered]

No, but they can very effectively chill dissent by letting us know they can watch us, arrest and hold without trial, and basically act with impunity.

Again, they couldn't go after Joe Citizen even if they wanted to. There are 260 million people in this country, roughly half in the opposition's camp. Most of them armed.

This is just plain silly. There are prominent newspaper columnists who go out of their way to publish articles highly critical of the government, yet the government is going out of its way to find out what some schoolteacher thinks?

In the past, everyone complained, "No one listens to our voice; the government doesn't care!" Now all of a sudden the government is soooo interested in hearing the thoughts of some high school teacher.

Some of you are turning into Chicken Littles.

[Unregistered]

1984 is a big success with my seniors; they love the discussions. They find Brave New World a great complement to it, principally because they see a lot more of the society in Brave New World in their own peers (fascination with drugs, sex, mindless entertainment, and no real need for training or education...this is obviously a broad generalization). They recognize the siren song of B.N.W. much more than the bleak dreariness of 1984, although they love reading both.
I don't remember who said something about there being no necessity to ban books or create them (a la 1984) in a society where no one wants to read them anyway (B.N.W.)

[Unregistered]

For the upcoming year the Senior English teachers and I (government) will read the book at the same time in our classes. I used the book several years ago in an APGOV class with great success.

[Unregistered]

We use this text as summer reading for "B" level seniors, yet I can't say many of them actually read it.

[Unregistered]

"We don't use that book anymore. We support our president and do not wish to invite students to question his methods."

Does this statement go along at all with the basis for which our nation was founded? I think not.

This is the reason our high school students need to revisit this classic.

[Unregistered]

Think: sarcasm

[Unregistered]

I had my sophomores read Animal Farm, and they liked it so much we read 1984 and Brave New World last year. It really opened their eyes.

[Unregistered]

In today's America, I think one of the most important books a student could read is Orwell's "1984." I'm not a teacher, but I do have the greatest respect for them. Could anyone tell me how frequently this book is used in today's high schools?

Thank you.

I am a high school English teacher. i teach it every year along with Eli Weisel's " Night."

[Unregistered]

sophomores read 1984 in our school

[Unregistered]

We don't have students read it at the school I work at, but they are required to read "Animal Farm" by Orwell.

I teach history however and we read excerpts from "1984", "Brave New World" when we study the Cold War.

[Unregistered]

we don't allow this book. we support our president

[Unregistered]

If you choose books on the basis of supporting our current president, I think you're pretty well limited to "My Pet Goat".

[Unregistered]

I have just read this entire forum and I have a few things to say.

(1) How can teaching certain literature be un-patriotic and not supporting your president. I am from the UK and find it quite ludicrous that you can think that a piece of literature should not be taught in your schools because it can be interpreted in a way that makes people think about the gentle erosion of our civil liberties. What your real problem is that most people do draw their own comparisons between 1984 and modern society, and that disagrees with what you believe, so you get defensive and disregard their opinion. Maybe you should go talk to the history teachers at your school and they will tell you all about a group of people called Nazi's who had similar views on this and actually went so far as to burn books. Our grandfathers fought in WWII to protect the right to freedom of speech, and you, as 'educated' people should hold it with more regard. I thought you came from the land of the free?

(2) To the person who claimed they evaluate teachers. It is my opinion that you have your head stuck so far up your ************ I am surprised you can read a thing. You insult teaching practises and show a disregard for certain teachers that has me thinking maybe you are in the wrong profession. Either that or you should learn a little more about the teaching practices of teaching teachers.

(3) This thread was started by a parent who asked to what extent the book is taught in schools, because they liked it. I read argument after argument about such a "work of fiction" being irrelevant to modern society. Personal view after personal view on the content, and only a few posts actually answering the question. As far as I am concerned Orwell wrote the book to inspire the freedom of thought that in 1984 doesn't exist. The fact that one mention of the text can inspire such a heated debate proves to me that the book works, and therefore must have relevance to our society.

[Unregistered]

Want know about how he got the ideas?
Start with "Down and Out in London and Paris."

If you can, re-read the end.
The Ingsoc appendix is confusing for the kids.

Big Brother, Kim Jong Il, George W. Bush - can you tell the difference?

Once USSR fell, we needed a new totalitarian state where people work for little, and are in debt up to their eyes.

[Unregistered]

(1) How can teaching certain literature be un-patriotic and not supporting your president. I am from the UK and find it quite ludicrous that you can think that a piece of literature should not be taught in your schools because it can be interpreted in a way that makes people think about the gentle erosion of our civil liberties.

The poster that mentioned the teaching of Big Brother was almost certainly yanking our chains, a fishing exhibition. He knows what our obvious reaction will be, so he posts the statement and watches the fur fly. It's the oldest trick on the Net.

What your real problem is that most people do draw their own comparisons between 1984 and modern society, and that disagrees with what you believe, so you get defensive and disregard their opinion. Maybe you should go talk to the history teachers at your school and they will tell you all about a group of people called Nazi's who had similar views on this and actually went so far as to burn books.

The second oldest trick on the Net is to compare opponents with Hitler or Nazis. In fact, there is a longstanding rule that a topic is dead once Hitler or Nazis are mentioned.

with Our grandfathers fought in WWII to protect the right to freedom of speech, and you, as 'educated' people should hold it with more regard. I thought you came from the land of the free?

What freedom of speech? If a teacher thinks that a certain race is to blame for society's ills, expressing that opinion to her students can get her fired.

Besides, are you really suggesting that a teacher who chooses not to teach the contents of a certain book is violating a right to freedom of speech? If anything, it sounds like she is exercising her right to free speech. So maybe you can clarify.

[Unregistered]

(2) To the person who claimed they evaluate teachers. It is my opinion that you have your head stuck so far up your ************ I am surprised you can read a thing. You insult teaching practises and show a disregard for certain teachers that has me thinking maybe you are in the wrong profession. Either that or you should learn a little more about the teaching practices of teaching teachers.

The following was posted before, and I think deserves posting again:

If all you can do to refute my arguments is to rely on personal attacks, then you have a very weak argument indeed.

[Unregistered]

This thread was started by a parent who asked to what extent the book is taught in schools, because they liked it. I read argument after argument about such a "work of fiction" being irrelevant to modern society.

Not sure what you are talking about. I didn't see anything posted here that states the book is irrelevant.

Now, I did state that the society described in Orwell's book doesn't mirror today's society as closely as many in here think. And I also stated that Orwell was not the prophet many claim. But that is not the same as stating his book is irrelevant.

[Unregistered]

The following was posted before, and I think deserves posting again:


Wasn't aware I had an arguement I was just offering my personal opinion.

[Unregistered]

It is usually a good practice to support opinions with something resembling reason. Otherwise, it is just a worthless, juvenile rant. After all, I could write in response, "Oh yeah, well you ****************!" But of what value is that?

We ARE teachers here. We can do better than post petty insults at each other.

[Paul R. from Boston]

Just going over some of the posts on this subject and am amazed at the naivete of some "teachers" whose argument boils down to "it can't happen here." Of course many of these were written prior to our nation suspending the right of habeus corpus. Still think it can't happen here? Hold on, there's someone at the door.....

[Unregistered]

Oh yeah, we are all going to be dragged out of our houses in the middle of the night for criticizing the government, which naturally has tapped our houses and is listening intently to everything we say. Of course, the Federal government is miles behind the space aliens in their ability to pry into our personal lives. It is all part of an inter-galactic plot.

[Paul R. from Boston]

Very good, Unregistered. Does the sarcasm make the "it can't happen here" rationale more believable to you. Feel safer by trying to marginalize those who don't share your complaisance? You'd have been equally comfortable in 1930's Germany with your attitude.

[Unregistered]

Sorry, but to compare our society to Germany in 1930 is ludicrous. At least my exagerration was meant tongue in cheek.

Any one of us can walk out of our homes at 10 pm, buy groceries, go to the movies, visit friends, talk on the phone, and not get picked up by the authorities for anti-governmental activities. This is not 1930 Germany, nor is it 1930 Soviet Union.

This is all based on "not liking the guy in power." I heard the same crap when Clinton was President. He was called "Herr Clinton" by some of my friends because he was supposedly out to enslave the population under the guise of political correctness. Democrats were called "Clintonistas." With Bush, people complain that he is tapping our phones because he really cares what we think. (Yeah, right!) It is all a bit silly.

There are no monsters in our closets, so let's quit living in fear and exaggerating reality.

[zenane]

I live in Addis Ababa. I am an English teacher. I am paid too little. And our country Ethiopia is to poor to pay big salary for its teachers. As an English teacher I know deeply that I should have read 1984 by now. Unfortunately and surprisingly, I haven't so far. So if anyone out there is compassionate enough please contact me through my email address which is zenane05@yahoo.com and send me, the book.

[Unregistered]

Sorry, but to compare our society to Germany in 1930 is ludicrous. At least my exagerration was meant tongue in cheek.

Any one of us can walk out of our homes at 10 pm, buy groceries, go to the movies, visit friends, talk on the phone, and not get picked up by the authorities for anti-governmental activities. This is not 1930 Germany, nor is it 1930 Soviet Union.

I think you are confused about the comparison. The Third Reich did not begin until 1933. The average citizen in Germany in 1930 was probably as convinced as you are that "it can't happen here." When a democractic government is taken over by intimidation and fraud, and then begins to dismantle basic legal protections, intelligent citizens should be concerned. Your insistence on depicting such concerns as "silly" are directly in line with the propaganda machine's dictates. Perhaps you might do better to study history and politics instead of getting your ideas from compromised media.

[Unregistered]

Again, this painting of the opposition as Fascist (as the Left does with the Right) or Marxist (as the Right does with the Left) is absurd and irrational.

Instead, let's use reasonable arguments rather than hyperbole. Otherwise, how are we expecting to get normal, intelligent people to take us seriously?

[Unregistered]

I think you are confused about the comparison. The Third Reich did not begin until 1933. The average citizen in Germany in 1930 was probably as convinced as you are that "it can't happen here." When a democractic government is taken over by intimidation and fraud, and then begins to dismantle basic legal protections, intelligent citizens should be concerned. Your insistence on depicting such concerns as "silly" are directly in line with the propaganda machine's dictates. Perhaps you might do better to study history and politics instead of getting your ideas from compromised media.

NPR just ran a feature about denial in nationalistic movements. For example, throughout the spread of American states and territories, Americans consistently have maintained that imperialism is not what america is about. Sort of like people who start racist comments with, "I'm not racist, but..."
It is a matter of historical record that national plunges into extremism and violence are preceded by a sort of mass denial among the populace. It is the "it can't happen here" hypnotic state that makes it possible for "nice countries" to turn into monsters.
The erosion of liberties, especially the suspension of rights like a trial, the right to know of what you are accussed, and the right to counsel are clear indicators that we have allowed fear take over our democratic notions. Can anyone name a single nation that has not experienced disasterous consequences for its citizens once it crosses the line of allowing law enforcement carte blanche in usurping individual freedom?

[Unregistered]

NPR just ran a feature about denial in nationalistic movements.

It shoudl run a similar feature about Communism... oh wait, that would require self-reflection on their parts. :D

[Unregistered]

It is the "it can't happen here" hypnotic state that makes it possible for "nice countries" to turn into monsters.

So any denial must be proof that it is occurring. In other words, state that the country is turning Fascist... any counterargument is simply written off in terms of "It Can't Happen Here," which in turn is proof that the country is turning Fascist.

That is called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Paul R. from Boston]

No, don't be silly. The reason why people are concerned is because of real events like the suspension of Habeaus Corpus,rigged elections in the U.S., and government control of the media. This isn't about namecalling, it's about Democratic ideals being systematically dismantled.

And by the way, I heard the NPR story, and it was about nationalism. That term does not exclude Communism. Is there really someone here who thinks that it is still us versus them and that we are the nationalists? Was I wrong to assume that people who post here at least read books and newspapers?

[Unregistered]

No, don't be silly. The reason why people are concerned is because of real events like the suspension of Habeaus Corpus,rigged elections in the U.S., and government control of the media.

All of which have been going on for as long as the US has been a country. Do you think Lyndon Johnson was elected to the Senate in a fair election? What about the Democratic Machine that dominated Southern politics throughout the 1950s and 1960s? Politics and the justice system are both probably a lot fairer today than they were forty years ago. All you have to do is read the history books about what took place in Chicago and New York City. And corruption is far, far rarer than in the 1950s when many big-city politicians were controlled by the Mob.

At that time, the fear was that the US was turning Communist. Now everyone is talking about Fascism. Neither argument has one iota of merit. Both arguments express irrational fears and hatred for political opponents.

This isn't about namecalling, it's about Democratic ideals being systematically dismantled.

If you want to discuss certain incidences and their consequences, fine. But don't take the consequences to a far extreme, such as calling the future Fascist, and offer it as proof of anything. It isn't even evidence.

Was I wrong to assume that people who post here at least read books and newspapers?

People should be able to disagree with you without being insulted. If you want to attack, then attack the arguments, not the people.

[Unregistered]

If you don't find the suspension of Habeus Corpus a threat to Democracy, what do you consider a threat? You seem to be very defensive of the current administration, to the point of defining any departure from the party line as "extremism".

Can you tell another example in American history when the government had the legal right to detain citizens for an unlimited time without offering the arrested access to legal counsel or even the right to know the crime he is accused of?

[Unregistered]

People should be able to disagree with you without being insulted. If you want to attack, then attack the arguments, not the people.

You are correct. However, when someone makes a statement that suggests their world view is one where the central global conflict is between nationalism and communism, that someone has no argument. Such a person does represent a brand of entrenched ignorance that is prevalant enough to need ridicule. If I have to explain to someone that communists have been among the most dangerous of nationalists I think I have a right to laugh. If this were a web site for 9 year olds I could be more reserved. The baffoon in this case was attacking National Public Radio because he has been told that this commercial free media occasionaly reports news critical of rabid nationalism in our own backyard, a stance that can is usually indicative of someone who has made a concious choice to turn off his own brain. That sort of voluntary stupidity is rarely benign, often entrenched and institutional, and very deserving of ridicule.

[Unregistered]

You are correct. However, when someone makes a statement that suggests their world view is one where the central global conflict is between nationalism and communism...

First you agree, then you go on an insulting rant about some poster's comment about NPR. All this because someone assumed (and we all know what happens when we assume) that a poster was stating that communism could not be nationalistic, which I fail to see anywhere.

This is why your post was a rant: You are trying to shout down an argument -- that Communism cannot be nationalist -- that was never proposed in the first place. You're arguing with yourself.

[Unregistered]

If you don't find the suspension of Habeus Corpus a threat to Democracy, what do you consider a threat? You seem to be very defensive of the current administration, to the point of defining any departure from the party line as "extremism".

I am not a party member. I just find some visions of the future hysterical.

Can you tell another example in American history when the government had the legal right to detain citizens for an unlimited time without offering the arrested access to legal counsel or even the right to know the crime he is accused of?

Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in 1861. That is a well-known fact. I don't recall the country turning Fascist as a result.

[Unregistered]

Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in 1861. That is a well-known fact. I don't recall the country turning Fascist as a result.

I am impressed that with your knowledge of American History. You also know then that the suspension of Habeus Corpus was one of Abe's least popular moves amongst defenders of the Constitution. Even those who defend this move point out that it was extreme but perhaps necessary during civil war. To this day his decision stands as a textbook example of how freedoms are threatened by an imbalance of power. If our nation could survive two world wars without the revoking of Habeus Corpus, a move considered too radical by Presidents in extreme national emergency, the encroachment of government upon individual rights at this time should serve as an alarm for any citizen who cares about Democracy. What you call "alarmist" seems like good sense to many. Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that public distrust for the government is at an all time high. Or do you simply consider that a result of alarmism?

[Unregistered]

I am impressed that with your knowledge of American History. You also know then that the suspension of Habeus Corpus was one of Abe's least popular moves amongst defenders of the Constitution. Even those who defend this move point out that it was extreme but perhaps necessary during civil war.

You're off track. The issue is whether the suspension of Habeus Corpus is a signal of a forthcoming dictatorship, not whether it is the right thing or popular thing to do. I offered a counterexample to this claim.

[Unregistered]

You're off track. The issue is whether the suspension of Habeus Corpus is a signal of a forthcoming dictatorship, not whether it is the right thing or popular thing to do. I offered a counterexample to this claim.
I disagree with your framing of the issue. When you frame the issue as a question of "forthcoming dictatorship" you force those who do not wish to risk taking Democracy into historically dangerous waters into extremist postures, opening an opportunity for opposing forces to marginalize dissent. You claim not be a party member, but you use their most popular propaganda tool.

The framers of the American Constitution were, thankfully, far less trusting of unbridled authority than you appear to be. Your voice is, apparantly, representative of a great percentage of this generation of Americans. The danger of an executive power that feels entitled to assume powers previously only enacted by the single President to face civil war, ought to disturb anyone protective of individual freedom. Far more alarming to me is this prevelant attitude of acceptance of casual usurption of key elements of freedom.

If allowing a government the power to arrest, detain, torture, and dispose of any citizen it chooses does not send warnings to those who love freedom, this is indicative of a citizenry that no longer cares for freedom. Franklin's much quoted claim that those who put security before freedom deserve neither is certainly appropriate.

[Unregistered]

I disagree with your framing of the issue. When you frame the issue as a question of "forthcoming dictatorship" you force those who do not wish to risk taking Democracy into historically dangerous waters into extremist postures, opening an opportunity for opposing forces to marginalize dissent. You claim not be a party member, but you use their most popular propaganda tool.

Oh yes, it was all a big plot on my part. The Government called me up and asked me to hatch this sophisticated plan to turn you into an extremist.

The issue in this thread is simple: Does today mirror Orwell's vision? You are trying to turn this into a "Do you support the government?" argument, because ultimately all you want to do is argue about George W. Bush. I have no interest in arguing Republicans versus Democrats. None at all.

Stay on track.

The framers of the American Constitution were, thankfully, far less trusting of unbridled authority than you appear to be. Your voice is, apparantly, representative of a great percentage of this generation of Americans. The danger of an executive power that feels entitled to assume powers previously only enacted by the single President to face civil war, ought to disturb anyone protective of individual freedom.

For the umpteenth time, I am not discussing whether or not George W. Bush is a bad president, or whether or not it was right to suspend Habeus Corpus. Obviously, you have your opinions on the matter; he has his. The issue is, "What are the ramifications of the current political situation?" I see no dictatorship on the horizon, and nothing you have said so far convinces me otherwise. So feel free to rant about Bush and Republicans all you wish. I have no interest in discussing the issue (which will ultimately turn into an argument over the price of fuel, fetal tissue, and immigration).

[Unregistered]

I have no interest in discussing the issue (which will ultimately turn into an argument over the price of fuel, fetal tissue, and immigration).

You sure spend a lot of time here getting pretty hot under the collar for someone who claims disinterest. Also, who brought up Bush? You, I think. Those who like to think that if only the president were someone else, our societies drive toward Orwellian totalitarianism are rather naive in my book. Almost as naive as those who think that we are safe from a degradation of our rights because the goverment hasn't fully exercised the new laws against freedom as of yet.

[Mr. H.]

We don't use that book anymore. We support our president and do not wish to invite students to question his methods.

HILARIOUS!! ok, seriously, they had us read it in college. Something along the lines of critical thinking... Hmmm, who knew we'd actually need to do that? Is that even a skill 'they' want us to learn?

[Unregistered]

Also, who brought up Bush? You, I think.

To pretend that the following quotes don't refer to Mr. Bush is to pretend we are arguing in Kindergarten.

The danger of an executive power that feels entitled to assume powers previously only enacted by the single President to face civil war, ought to disturb anyone protective of individual freedom.

You seem to be very defensive of the current administration, to the point of defining any departure from the party line as "extremism".

By the way, we don't have to go too far back to find an outrageous attack on our Constitution. Remember when FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court, increasing its size and allowing him to appoint at least six court justices? That is far more serious than the suspension of Habeus Corpus, because it endangers the entire Bill or Rights. Talk about dictatorship.

[Unregistered]

By the way, we don't have to go too far back to find an outrageous attack on our Constitution. Remember when FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court, increasing its size and allowing him to appoint at least six court justices? That is far more serious than the suspension of Habeus Corpus, because it endangers the entire Bill or Rights. Talk about dictatorship.

Exactly. The unbalance of executive power that has led to what has been called 'the imperial presidency' did not begin with the current administration. Democracy is a fragile balance that is under constant threat of devolving into dictatorship or oligarchy. The warning that Orwell offers us is that Democracy exists rarely, and only with a highly vigilant populace.

Apparantly, the fact that law enforcement now has the legal right to pick you or I up and keep us indefinetly without charges brought or access to legal counsel does not alarm you. I can only conclude you imagine it is me and not you who is vulnerable. Think again.

[Unregistered]

Just curious: What is your opinion of the NRA?

[Unregistered]

I don't think about the NRA all that much. I have to admit gun ownership is an issue that seems like danged if you do danged if you don't.

Why do you ask?

[Unregistered]

You seem to be highly principled regarding freedoms and rights, so I expected that you would extend the same philosophy to the Second Amendment.

[Unregistered]

You seem to be highly principled regarding freedoms and rights, so I expected that you would extend the same philosophy to the Second Amendment. I am somewhat disappointed, however, by your less-than-spirited response.

[Unregistered]

Well, friend, I am a work in progress and I don't have all the answers yet. There are issues I feel sure of and others I reserve the right to keep an open mind on. While I do believe in a well armed populace, the degree to which the average joe should be armed is still not clear to me.
For example, having enought armament to keep my home safe seems basic to my rights as an free person. But does that right extend to owning a grenade launcher, say, or a snipers rifle? I've listened to the arguments on both sides, and am still unsure. How would you answer that one?

[Unregistered]

Sniper's rifle? You mean, a hunting rifle with a scope? I have one in my house.

Grenade launchers are fine in my book. Grenades, however, are not since they are explosive devices, not firearms. Since a grenade launcher is useless without the grenades, banning them is not a violation of the Second Amendment as I see it.

Let's not get too deep into the Second Amendment, since that topic can develop feet of its own and this thread could never end.

For example, having enought armament to keep my home safe seems basic to my rights as an free person.

That's good enough for me.

[Unregistered]

We teach it at our high school to our 10th graders. It is a fascinating study of current times.

Check out this website for some shocking and eye-opening links between 1984 and the world we live in today.


http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/002285.html



But beware of what you do on the internet and where you go, because remember... Big Brother is watching you. (Don't think this is true then research the Echelon system that is tapped into your computer right now)

[Unregistered]

In today's America, I think one of the most important books a student could read is Orwell's "1984." I'm not a teacher, but I do have the greatest respect for them. Could anyone tell me how frequently this book is used in today's high schools?

Thank you.

My college prep have the option to choose 1984 to read. One class did choose this book. They find it thought provoking.

[Unregistered]

Uh...I'm not sure how to reply to the above response.

In my school all Jrs. read this. If students are in AP classes they don't do it Jr. year, but Sr. year.

I agree with your UM response. But, my questions goes to the order of the students reading. Why do the AP students read it LATER than the others? I guess I would think the other way around.

[Unregistered]

My AP English teacher had us do a comparison between 1984 and Wiesel's Night (memoir of holocaust survivor) which was quite enlightening. We explored the similar ways that the oppressors in each book systematically broke down the wills of the oppressed. It was a good example of how two literary works can illuminate insights in one another and a sobering study of processes and effects of oppression. The ideas from that paper are still in my mind as I begin teaching Night for the first time.

[Unregistered]

I let My students read it in Turkey. English for English classes , Turkish for others. halitbeysehir@hotmail.com