Impossiblity of a Utopia

If one thing struck my while listening to the Prologue and reading Utopia, it was the part dealing with the slaughter of animals.  In Utopia, the citizens are not vegetarians, yet they do not slaughter animals.  This is due to a fear that it would cause those of the society to become less compassionate.  Much like in another Rumination I read, I saw some commonalities with another piece of work.  In my case it came from Ursula K. LeGuin’s, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.”

            “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” is a short story that describes a utopian society, Omelas.  The first few pages are all description, there is no war, there is no religion to divide people, sex is not frowned upon, drug use is allowed but no one ever gets addicted.  Everything is completely, implausibly perfect.  The suddenly the tone shifts dramatically.  We are taken into the basement of a building and shown a child.  This child is forced to live in a closet, fed gruel everyday, made to live in its own feces, and no one is ever allowed to do any kindness to it.  Everyone in the city is forced to go see the boy and they are told that if anyone where to ever be kind to him, their entire civilization would come crashing down.  Some are able to accept this.  Some are able to live on in willful ignorance of what is really going on.  Mean while others are slowly but surely souring to Omelas because of what they have seen.  Eventually all of these pack up their stuff and take the road that leads north out of the city.  They are the ones who walk away from Omelas.

            A very similar scene is playing out in Utopia.  The people, instead of killing the animals themselves, have their slaves do it somewhere away from the town.  By doing so they feel some sort of vindication of the guilt over allowing the animals to be slaughtered.  So long as they don’t have to see it or do it, it might as well not have happened.  This is the same sort of willful ignorance that keeps the wheels of Omelas going, and it is yet another proof that a Utopian world is not possible.  If this is a preferential system, then it must be meant for the whole world.  If the whole world is a Utopia, then where will the slaves go to slaughter to animals?

            This is all not even mentioning the existence of slaves.  How can any civilization claim to be a perfect Utopia when one class of men reigns over another by any reason other than popular consent?  Are the slaves willfully put into their subservient condition in order to fulfill the needs of the greater populous?  If not, then it is no Utopia.  Even with consent, it is hard to view any civilization claiming to be a Utopia as more than a sham.

Letter To Students

Dear Students,
       I witnessed a very disturbing occurrence today as I attempted to cram for a Roman History exam.  Now, having been a student an UD for almost three years, I am quite familiar with the man known as "Kirkbride Jesus."  You know him too, the one who stands on South College near Kirkbride Hall and informs us all that we are on a sex and alcohol fuel slip and slide to hell. (Obviously he has never taken one of Professor Sidebotham's exams, hell isn't a place you go when you die, its available Monday, Wednesday, Friday from 1:25-2:15.)
       However misguided I believe him to be, I respect the man's right to free speech, but what I saw and heard over the last few says, today in particular, shocked me.  I watched as he and his lackeys (for I can think of no other word for someone who so willfully ignorant) planning a coordinated attack (verbal, of course) on students.  This followed by a particularly hate filled diatribe about screamed out at my peers as they rushed to and from class.
      I have to wonder, why?  Why is he so hell, or rather heaven, bent on telling me that everything do and believe is wrong?  Its funny really.  The pathetic ramblings of a man without the common decency to live and let live.  I'd laugh, if I didn't want very much to cry.
      Its horrible to see something meant to be positive twisted in such a way.  Sure there are plenty of amoral people at UD, but the majority of them that I've met, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Atheist alike, are generally good people.  So what does KJ think he is accomplishing?  other than letting us know that Jesus loves him more than us, the answer is nothing.
      I look forward to a day where all can be left to live and let live, but until then, I'll just turn my iPod up louder and move to my own beat.

-Nick Lugo

Has Journalism Really Changed That Much?

            Based on the prologue video I had formed a few expectations about what I was going to be reading.  I expected the origin of journalism, probably spanning from an unrecognizable beginning into something vaguely resembling what we have today.  I expected a focus on personal feelings, rather than any sort of objectivity (objectivity which is arguable at best and entirely absent at worst today).  Instead I found something that bears a striking resemblance to modern journalism.

            Journalism comes down to the practice of spreading the news of events to people who could not be there.  Much like letter writing, it serves the purpose of creating a conversation between two absent parties, the difference being that while letters are meant for two specific people, an article is meant for one person to converse with the masses.  The problem most people have with journalism today is that publications and news channels a like seem to be more concerned with ratings and readership than spreading the truth.  Articles are laced with bias and everything is sensationalized.  Turn on any program, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, they are all equally guilty in this (but some are more equal than others if you catch my drift).

            One would think that going back to the origins of the thing would present us with journalism at its purest form, something untainted by modern problems with journalism.  You can imagine my surprise them when the first piece of early journalism I read was a play by play account of the trial and execution of Charles I.

            Now I’m not saying this shouldn’t have been news, it clearly was.  The death of the monarch, the over throw of the established order, all of this was vital information that might not have reached the masses where it not for these written accounts.  Yet I can’t help but wonder how much modern journalism really has strayed from its origins.  Were the good old days really that good?  Or are O’Reilly and the rest of the gang just keeping with what works?

            Moving on to the portions written by Filmer, Milton, and Winstanley, I cannot help but wonder how wildly these pieces where really read.  They seem to serve as what we might call an Op-Ed piece today, but where they as widely available as the accounts of the monarchs execution?

            So while I came into this weeks reading expecting to see the glory days of journalism, when the writer reported the truth minus any sort of sensationalist garbage.  I got a bit more than I bargained for.  If the origins of journalism lay in the reporting of executions and revolutions, how much fault can we truly find with modern journalists doing the same?  In my opinion the answer is “a whole hell of a lot,” that we should constantly strive to be better than our forbears and not languish in mediocrity and the status quo, but maybe that’s just me.  What do you guys think?