Orwell Discussion on George Orwell

Eric Arthur Blair, who is better remembered by his pen name, George Orwell, was one of the most influential authors of the twentieth century. He is one of the few modern day individuals who has fostered the creation of a new word -- "Orwellian." This word itself could be the subject of an entire book with many modern day examples. This has led many people to believe that much of Orwell's work was prophetic in nature; giving insights as to what individuals might expect in one possible future for humanity.

Just to illustrate the importance of the term Orwellian that has perpetrated the modern vernacular, a few examples will be provided. One example of a rather Orwellian term that actually predates Orwell himself is the concept of civil war. If the contradiction doesn't appear immediately, just reflect on any war that you were aware of that was truly "civil." Wars are not civil by any stretch of the imagination. In fact all wars are bloody and horrific in nature and result in vast amount of human suffering. However, associating a war along with the term civil serves to distract the reader from the true nature of the event that it describes.

Furthermore, Orwell's ideas may be even more relevant today than they were in his time. The world has developed a more complex operating environment at an exponential pace. It is seldom that people get the chance to study any topic in-depth due to the fact that the challenges of modernity leave little time for people to thoroughly research the nuances inherent in any given topic. Many people believe that some of Orwell's concepts have been further refined and are still in play today; just better disguised.

On example can be provided by Paul Krugman who is a Nobel Prize winning economist who writes for the New York Times. He argued in his book "Fuzzy Math" that the Bush era tax cuts was really a trick on the public to hide an alternative motive by politicians to disguise...

He uses the term fuzzy math to convey the idea that the goal of the tax cuts was to disproportionately benefit the top one percent of income earners. However, since people are busy and don't have much time or the ability to fully research the actual economics behind such a proposition that they were unduly enticed by the attractiveness of the small tax cut that they received that actually hurt them in the end. With the present deficit problem, that advantage of hindsight adds a lot of credibility to Krugman's work.
Other intellectuals have also criticized the United States on the basis that their "defense spending" doesn't actually have much to do with defense. Rather, the purpose of defensive spending is actually for offensive measures. For example, the United States keeps hundreds of active military bases all over the world. Some estimates say that the U.S. has over seven hundred and thirty seven active bases worldwide (Johnson). Furthermore, the United States spends all most as much money on "defense" as the total spending on intelligence and military operations from the rest of the world combined (Mataconis).

Thus if you consider these two factors together, it might seem evident that the lines between defense and offense are at least partially blurred. Especially when you consider the wars in the Middle East and how they were most likely not completely motivated with defense in mind. Actually, many analysts have estimated the United States is more at risk of terrorist activities than it was before the wars began. This is due to the fact that violence generally breeds violence.

In the case of Iraq, there are countless examples of civilians being killed. Imagine a child who saw their parents shoot down by American troops. It is reasonable to suspect that such an impressionable action would foster hatred against the United States. It is also reasonable to suspect that this child would be far more likely to join a…