A friend recently recommended that I read the book 1984 by George Orwell and I was quite surprised at how much I liked it. I really didn’t like the ending of the book but up until that point I thought that it was a very good read. For whatever reason, I started to think about the concepts presenting in the book and was shocked at how much that they resembled real life.

I’m talking about the concepts of Thoughtcrime and Newspeak. For those unfamiliar with the book, Thoughtcrime is pretty much like it sounds: thoughts are deemed to be unexceptable by the standards of the “Party” or government and therefore labeled as crime. Newspeak is also like it sounds: it is the new language for all of Oceania, the country that Orwell invents for the purposes of the book (present day Western Hemisphere plus Great Britain). The language is based on English but its goal is to limit the freedom of speech for all that speak it, making a thoughtcrime impossible (because there aren’t words to describe another point of view).

So how do Thoughtcrime and Newspeak relate to real life. Certainly we have freedom of speech (and thought), right? Yes and no. We do to a point; Congress makes no law on what we can or can’t say (or think) but the court of public opinion does.

Keep a cautious eye on the five middle eastern men who board your airplane and you are having a political incorrect thought (Thoughtcrime). Or, calling a person a ‘Native American’ rather than an ‘Indian’ (Newspeak).

These are just a few of examples of the phenomenon called ‘Political Correctness’. Granted, the whole purpose of political correctness is to stop people from saying things that are mean or hurtful to a person on the basis of nationality, gender, religion, skin color, etc. I don’t think that it is a bad thing if people aren’t discriminative or hostile towards others – indeed lack of this would make the world a better place. But censoring a free person in this manner (all humans are supposed to be free) is worse than the actual “hate” that they would have said in the first place.

Getting back to the purpose of political correctness though; the whole idea is very much like Newspeak. Think, the purpose of Newspeak in the book was to make it literally impossible for somebody to think a thought that was contrary to what ‘Big Brother’ wanted that to think. Political correctness works the same way, attempting to remove words from our vocabulary that are potentially hurtful to others. If political correctness succeeds, people will have no way of insulting somebody on the basis of the aforementioned topics (not that they should, but it isn’t something that somebody should tell you not to do).

Do I think that the world will regress into the scenario described in 1984? No, the rest of the story seems utterly unrealistic to me. I just think that people would be more vocal if the their rights were taken away in the manner described by Orwell. That said, I would definitely consider this book a must read. Not only for the concepts I’ve talked about but for the other stuff as well. You’d be surprised at how many times other materials (books, movies, TV shows, even people) reference this book.

The way the terrorist events were handled over the last two weeks (or should I say fortnight) was spectacular; only one terrorist injured and eight or nine arrests. The British seem to be really on top of things. But I don’t really think that this can be attributed to the new PM, it’s credit really goes to the hard work of the British police and the MI5. I think Gordon Brown is really a softy when it comes to the issue.

As one of his first acts as PM, he ordered his government to stop using the term, “the War on Terror”, because he feared it might offend Muslims. According to the British Government, many British Muslims think that the phrase is a euphemism for a ‘War on Islam’. How silly, the war isn’t on Muslims, the war is on terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children to spread a political or religious message (doesn’t matter if they are Muslim). Furthermore (and this is especially applicable in the UK), who says radical Muslims are the only ones that are terrorists?

Is there really a reason why so many senators voted against the purposed official language bill. I’m not sure I’m even know of anyone that thinks English shouldn’t be our official language.

If you think it shouldn’t be – Please give me a reason why. I’m dying to know.

Geno’s, an extremely popular Philly-Cheesestake sandwich place put up a sign last year requiring people to use English when ordering. Not that they won’t serve people who don’t speak English as a first language or that they won’t help people with poor English people but simply, they don’t have the resources to understand all the diverse languages spoken in a big city. Philadelphia (by the way, Philadelphia has the largest City Hall in the country, its actually larger the the Capital Building if I remember correctly, I’ll upload pictures) has issued a civil suit against the restaurant claiming discrimination.

What is a restaurant to do when they can’t understand the people who are ordering. Sure, they might be able to hire people who speak Spanish but then what if someone comes up and tries to order in German, or French, etc. And yes, people from all over come to this place, its internationally known for its Philly-Cheesestakes (they are so good!). If they were truly to comply with every language that could possibly be ordered with, they would have to build a translation room similar to the one that the UN has! Its ridiculous that this is even being considered as a law suit! Sure, America is changing (for the worst in many cases) and more and more people who speak Spanish, but not a majority and certainly not the people that work at this restaurant so give them a break!