Why So Literate?

Speech and writing are both very effective forms of communication, whether in the social aspect or to transfer information. The negatives of writing far outweigh those of speech however. In ancient culture for example, writing was restricted solely to government, fiscal, magical and religious properties. So the average citizen normally didn't know how to write, while everyone knew how to speak the language. Scribes became a privileged, restricted class. So while not many were able to write, they were all able to converse through speech. Speech allowed any person to communicate and transfer information, as well as on a much more personal matter. Writing also gave birth to new religions, which were used to control the people, acting as a "creative voice, and master of books." Words became imbued with power, segregating the two followings of religion and magic.[1] Magicians used force or trickery to control people. Writing also limits the amount of information you can put on papyrus. It can been stolen and read by enemies of your people, while speech can only be heard, and thus more difficult for information to be stolen. Writing also led to believe that the gods' concern was capitalist, landlord and bank. As we know in today's society, capitalism doesn't provide much for the middle and lower class. It's concern is with the rich, and taxing the middle class and poor. Writing also only provided for a limited view of the world, a religious one. Scripture was the main function of writing, as well as practically every act of civil life was a matter of law to be recorded by the scribes. So everything related to religion and law was recorded.[1] This didn't allow many to learn and share their own beliefs. This caused the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of priests and temple organizations. This also hindered the control of organized warfare, as priests and temple weren't experienced in war. Speech however is more straight forward, and there is no room for misconception. Writing had to be very precise, and if not done so could lead to a vague order that would cripple a city-state. [1]
Writing has generally been seen as a force of good. But there is a darker side in the expansion of literacy. Writing has been used to tell lies, to confuse, and exploit, as well as "make minds lazy". As Socrates said, "you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom," in reference to the Egyptian god Thoth. Socrates argues that people will read many things, but without instruction they will be truly ignorant. I agree with Socrates in that you need some sort of guidance when reading or the material simply doesn't have and contextual value. Without being able to relate it personally you won't make much sense of it. Just as Stalin used propaganda during the Cold War, Babylonians and Assyrians along with the Egyptians and Hittites used writing to tell their own side of a story, to reaffirm who was boss and in charge. Writing like this causes the poverty and despair afflicted on Soviet Russia during World War II and the Cold War. Writing can be molded to the users needs and wants, while speech is personal, and though can be evil, requires much more boldness to use. For example, you would deface a friend right in front of them, but some wouldn't hesitate doing it behind their backs. This simple example shows how speech is a superior in while it can be used for evil, it's much more difficult or strenuous to do so. Another downsized to writing and literacy is if you can’t read what’s been written, you have no way to actually understand it. It’s impossible. But if you can’t speak the same language as someone, you can still communicate to them through hand gestures and body language.[1]
Tokens changed society in several ways. First and foremost, tokens were the predecessors to modern currency. Tokens could be used to barter and trade livestock, food, or other necessities that were available. As well, they were very adaptable to the needs of society. If a new food source was discovered, tokens could be made to accommodate them. As well, tokens change society by giving power to the individual. If you were the only one with a certain item, everyone would have to come to you, increasing trade and building an economy out of a bartering city-state. It wasn't the tokens themselves that caused the birth of economy, it was rather how they were used as symbols for purchasable things. For example, they could have easily been made to represent something of the church, like scriptures to be borrow and you could only do so with a token. Likely, the only ones with tokens would be priests and scribes who needed and wanted to read scriptures. The average citizen however would not have access, and things could have turned out much differently. There are a few negatives to tokens though. Tokens eventually lead up to the society we have today, which is much more complicated and confusing. If you are not educated enough, you won't be able to make a decent living in today's society. Also, tokens place a money value on something, which can be misconstrued. If one were to place a money value on sheep, for instance, what's to say you can't place a money value on someone's life? It leads to a more cynical, dark view of the world depending on how the technology is used and seen by the eyes of society.

[1] Crowley, David and Paul Heyer. Communication in History: Technology,
Culture, Society, 5th edition. Boston: Pearson, 2007, originally published in 2003.

Evening, Commissioner..

Dan Kenitz states in his article that the socialist views of Barrack Obama would cripple our nations economically. I disagree somewhat with Kenitz points. Kenitz states how Obama's "economic justice" policies would cut military funding and "our own economy at the knees." I disagree with Kenitz point that Obama's socialist policies would cripple our economy. I believe that we need more liberal and socialist ideals that will help the citizen. By cutting military funding and increasing the minimum wage, we can put more money straight into the pocket of the average citizen, rather than heavily tax them to pay the lucridous amount of money we spend on our military. Take for instance Japan after World War II. Japan's first use of overseas military since World War II was the deployment in Iraq. As Japan didn't spend so much on military they focused on their economy and are now hailed as one of the most technicalogical countries of the world. Since 2001, the United States used almost 700 billion dollars on military spending.^[1] So Kenitz’s argument that Obama's policies would cripple our government seems unfounded. He compares Obama's policies to those of Castro's, insinuating that Obama will make everyone equal, in poorness, hunger, and a oppression. Kenitz views are very radical in suggesting that Obama would communize our society. Kenitz makes it look like he is in favor of a Republican President, which is the last thing that our country needs. I think Bush's eight year term has provided sufficient evidence that power shouldn't be in the hands of the corporate world. Mike Huckabee, however did have an interesting solution to the problem of poverty in our country. His plan was to eliminate the IRS and income tax, and increase sales tax to make up for the different. While you pay much more for goods and services, you have more money in your pocket to begin with that you can choose how to spend it. This idea is known as Fair Tax, and also includes a monthly rebate from the government.^[2] Kenitz also states that Obama's father insinuated that the populace would pay for all the services Obama is proposing, like free college tuition, universal health care, universal 401ks, free job training, more subsidized housing, as well as a living wage with a ten dollar minimum wage indexed to inflation. But all these things could be easily accomplished if we limited our military spending, which Kenitz argues heavily against when he states he would rather have an "army of soldiers", rather than Obama's "army of teachers." Kenitz tries to deface Obama by implying that he masks his socialist ideas by calling it, economic justice. But isn't that it is? Helping the average middle class worker, and taxing the rich to provide for the poor?

BipolarNation.com : Masking His Socialism