To Change a Name

One aspect of names that interests me very much is the way that they can change over the course of a person's life. When children are very young, people often refer to them by nicknames or "pet" names. These names can be closely related to the child's actual name, or have no relation to it at all. This phenomenon seems to coincide with the philosophy behind modern childhood, as defined by the prologue to Huck's Raft. Stephen Mintz says that children were considered "innocent, malleable, and fragile creatures who needed to be sheltered from contamination". I believe that when a parent or other adult calls a child by a pet name, they are treating them as if they are not yet mature enough to bear their full name.This said, I think that nicknaming a child helps adults to become closer to the child on a more personal level earlier on in their life. I do not think that this is necessarily a bad thing, so long as the nicknaming ends before adolescence. 
       On the topic of adolescents, we also use nicknames, but I think that it is for a diferent reason than parents do. The reason why teens give themselves and their friends nicknames relates to the first question on our childhood opinionaire: Are children their parents' possessions? Teens make efforts to become their own people, and therefore feel the need to remove themselves from their parents and take charge of their own lives to a greater extent. Giving alternate names does exactly this.
        I have personal experience with this. When I was in third grade, I decided that I wanted to change my name from Nicole to Lizzy, after my middle name, Eizabeth. I went to my parents one day and informed them of this, and I must admit that I think they thought it was just a phase that I was going through. So, to make sure that I really cared about doing this, they told me that I was allowed to change my name, as long as I wrote personal letters to all of my teachers and relatives, explaining the situation to them. Apparently, I really did care, so I wrote the letters and everyone now calls me Lizzy.
     I was a very independent child, and although I do not remember third grade very well, there is no doubt in my mind that I did this to take more charge of my own name, and therefore my own life.
       The final instance when a name changes is usually around the time that a person gets married. In America, the norm is that the woman takes her husband's last name, and his name is passed on to all of their children. To me, this seems to go back to the times when a woman would go off to join her husband's family (along with a dowry) and often never see her family again. It implies some ownership and dominance that the man has over the woman.
      One of the adults in my life that I think has the coolest name actually changed his first name, then took his wife's family name when they married. Against the grain? Yes. But it defines him as a person and I believe that he would be a very different person today if he had not done this. 
     So, what's in a name? Quite a lot.

Tom Deluca

Did anyone else see the Tom Deluca hypnotist show last night? I did, and I would highly recommend it to everyone in our school, and not just because it was hilarious. As soon as the show started, my disbelief vanished. There were about twenty seniors onstage for whom the hypnosis had worked (it wasn't effective for about five people, who returned to the audience).       The subjects went to sleep and Mr. Deluca told them things to do. He would then say the trigger word to wake them up and they would begin to act however he had instructed. At the conclusion of the show, he woke them up and they remembered nothing of what they had done.
     Weird? Yes.
     When I got home, I did some internet sleuthing to find out more about what hypnosis is exactly and how it works. (To view the site I did, click here. I also corroborated my findings with a few other sites.) The main misconception that I found was that the hypnotist is actually controlling his subjects and could make them do anything that he wanted them to do. This is false. 
      For starters, a hypnotist cannot hypnotize someone who is unwilling. This is not some moral code of conduct. It is just physically not possible to do. This is because the hypnotist is not actually employing any type of mind-control. He is really just serving as a guide to help the subject tap into his or her subconscious mind. What happens during hypnosis is that the left side of the brain slow down while the left side (the imaginative one) begins to take control. It is really a state of "heightened suggestibility" when adults will throw themselves into playing pretend, the same way that children do, without much fear of embarrassment. This said, you still maintain your moral code and some social inhibitions. For example, if the hypnotist said to take your clothes off, almost no one would actually comply. 
    So what I have gathered is that hypnosis is really one way to tap unused imagination. Even the most unimaginative people can come up with the most interesting things while under hypnosis. This has interesting implications for the world. What if hypnosis were more widely used, and not just for stage shows and therapy? With all that untapped human potential could we accomplish much more than we currently do? I think so.

Interesting Words

Recently a foreign exchange student from Sweden moved in with my family and I. English is her second language, and although she speaks excellently, some things just don't translate well. While explaining slang phrases such as "epic fail", I began to wonder about the nature of slang and how languages evolve over time.
     One main thing that I noticed was that words like great, awesome, and epic have very positive modern meanings. They all signify that something is very good and tend to have positive connotations. If you read any older English literature, however, these words simply mean "quite large" and have neutral connotations.
    This phenomenon strikes me as strange, and I have been trying to think of a valid explanation for it. One theory is that America is the land of "bigger and better" so maybe our language has started to reflect that. We always want bigger cars, bigger tvs, and bigger cheeseburgers. 
    Any theories?

Stars Coming Out

Earlier this week, Meredith Baxter, former star of Family Ties, publicly stated that she is a lesbian. The press, of course, accepted her story with open arms, eager for some hot new gossip. Here is the article that I found: Coming out in Hollywood not always easy. One interesting point that the article brought up was that gay or lesbian actors might not be able to play a straight character after they come out, depending on how public their declaration was. The logic is that their sexuality will detract from the overall movie. Girls won't swoon over the heartthrob in a romantic comedy if they know that he is gay.

      My question is, Are famous people who have more media coverage more or less obligated to be open about their sexuality? Do they have a responsibility to the public to share things like this, that are so socially volatile? Or do they deserve to keep more secrets, since their lives are already so public?
      I believe that Hollywood stars to are not straight have to responsibility of being public about their sexuality. Since they live so much of their lives in the spotlight, they get immense media coverage (maybe more than they should). Many Americans consider the lives of Hollywood stars to be perfect, ideal, and sometimes even normal. 
      So when a person who is widely known, liked, and respected declares publicly that they are gay, it becomes much easier for the average struggling teen to do the same. If a teen's family sees a celebrity coming out, it could make them more comfortable with the idea of their own child being different.
       I agree with the article that coming out might effect an actor's career, but so might many other things, such as marriage, divorce, having children, or scandal. If someone chooses to live their life under the public eye like these people do, they should have a better career plan then one that could be ruined by a single headline. They have a moral responsibility to use the media to its fullest advantage and make coming out of the closet something that no one should be afraid of. 
     What do you think?

"Obama, Afghanistan"

Just a few hours ago, President Obama delivered a long-anticipated speech on his plan for the future of the War on Terror. (If you missed it, click here to view part of the speech.) Obama spoke from West Point, New York. Personally, I liked his speech very much. Aside from his incredibly beautiful rhetoric, which we have come to expect from our Commander in Chief, the speech really demonstrated a clear plan of what actions the government plans to take overseas in the next few years. Rather than being a lot of pretty phrases and words inspiring the public's patriotism, Obama went into some detail about troop deployment and even provided a timeline. That in itself is a bold move--providing the public with actual dates that we can hold him responsible for.
      Despite all of these positive points of his speech, Obama faces many critics, as always. CBS News has posted a few of the "early responses" to Obama's speech. I would like to repspond to a few of these.
        The first of these took issue with the fact that Obama has set a date when he is going to pull the troops out of Afghanistan and send them home. Senator McCain said, "Success is what dictates dates for withdrawal and if we don't have that success and we only set an arbitrary date, it emboldens our enemies and dispirits our friends." I think that the exact opposite is true. If you do not have clear goals and a known destination, no matter how quickly you go or how much you accomplish, you will never achieve something if you don't know what exactly you are trying to achieve. In other words, running as faster than all of the others in the race only ensures victory if you are aiming yourself at the finish line. We, as a nation, got so used to having ambiguous causes for going to war, that it seemed as if we might have troops overseas for all the foreseeable future. A definite timeline is refreshing and gives our troops hope that the end is in sight. It tells our enemies that we are sure of ourselves and confident. 
       The second main objection to the new plan was the cost. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders said, "I agree with President Obama that it would be a setback for democracy and stability if the Taliban regained power, but I have serious concerns…why in the midst of a severe recession – with 17 percent of our people unemployed or under-employed and one out of four kids on food stamps – are we going to be spending $100 billion a year on Afghanistan when we have so many pressing needs at home?" One thing that Obama said in his speech that really stuck out to me was that we, as a nation, have forgotten the connection between national security and out economy. Despite the cost of the war, I believe that our current government is responsible with our tax money and that this war will really help our economy in the long run. There is one thing that I really don't understand, though. It seems like wars used to be amazing for our economy, even bringing us out of the Depression. Why is the opposite now true?
      I am sure that there are some problems with Obama's plan, but shouldn't we be glad that the American people have been given any plan at all?

The Hazards of Facebook and Health Insurance

As I logged on to Comcast the other day, I cam across a disturbing article. (To view it, click here.) It describes a Canadian woman who was out of work, battling severe depression, and receiving sick-leave benefits. The money from her insurance company stopped coming this fall, and she was informed that the reason for this lack of benefits was that the company had seen pictures of her on Facebook partying and vacationing. 
     The company's rationale was that a person who was actually severely depressed would not party or go on vacation, but the woman's doctor specifically instructed her to do both of these things in an attempt to battle the illness. She is now suing the insurance company in a case that will go before the judge on December 8th.
     The main question that the court will be addressing is whether or not the insurance company can make that sort of decision based solely on pictures off of Facebook or similar sources. They have made a medical judgment from pictures, which seems to me to be an ineffective method. 
     The company did release the statement that, "we would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on Web sites such as Facebook." Despite this blanket statement, any other method of gathering evidence against the woman has been unclear.
     My main concern while reading this article was that of personal privacy. How disturbing would it be to have your insurance money taken away after agents merely saw pictures of you on Facebook? 
      It seems to me as though we feel like there is some anonymity on the internet, and that therefore we use much less caution online than we would otherwise. This is just one more cautionary tale for those of us who cannot seem to get that through our heads!
     Do you think that it is acceptable for an insurance carrier to search their clients on Facebook?

Knowlege, Recieved and Discovered

In the spirit of always questioning the world around us...
       In class, we have been talking about the benefits and downsides of different methods of learning. The main argument seems to be that the most effective way of learning is to discover things for yourself and not to rely on others to hand-feed you every little fact. 
      The challenge of this method is that it is quite time-consuming. It also cannot really be tested in the standardized tests (which are currently so vital to success in school) because the outcome of such personal discovery cannot always be predicted or controlled. Personally, I quite enjoy learning by discovering the knowledge for myself, and I tend to remember things better that way.
      In school, the main way we learn is through received knowledge, simply for time's sake. During American Studies, however, we try to discover things for ourselves as much as we can. We tend to do this via class discussion, and I believe that this poses a few problems.
      First of all, when there is a certain piece of information or a certain conclusion that our teachers want us to arrive at by the end of the discussion, they tailor the conversation to meet their wishes. Sometimes it seems as if the class is having a discussion that has taken on a life of its own and that is yielding new discoveries, but then, the invisible hand of one of our teachers will come down and ask a question or make a comment that directs the conversation towards the exact place that they want it to go.
      As the discussion draws to a close, the point that they are driving at becomes clearer and clearer, until finally, it is revealed.
      The point that I am trying to make is that even though the entire class is contributing and participating during discussions, Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor are always there in the background (and sometimes in the foreground) guiding the learning. So, even though we are "discovering" the knowledge for ourselves, they are determining what exactly we are going to discover. 
     There are, of course, some exceptions to this, and I do not think that it is an incorrect teaching method. In fact, I think that it makes for very interesting classes. I just think that we all have to bear in mind the fact that even discovered knowledge can be helped along by a teacher, and therefore, does not depend solely on the student's own discovery. The problem this poses is that

sometimes, received knowledge can feel like discovered knowledge. 
     Just something to be mindful of.
    Any thoughts?

Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash

Today when I read the Science Times, one article in particular stuck out at me. It was titled Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash. (To view the full article, click here.)

     In short, the article discussed gyres, which are areas of the ocean with very strong currents and weak winds. There are about five large gyres in the world, two or three of which are in the Pacific. Here is the astounding part: One of these gyres in the Pacific doubles in size every decade and is currently twice the size of Texas.
     The trash that swirls about these massive pools consists largely of fishing refuse, toxic chemicals, and tiny plastic shards that have been broken off of larger plastic forms. Not only are they unsightly, but they also cause health risks to any person who eats fish that have swum around in these areas.

    The final line of the article struck me: "For the captain’s first mate, Jeffery Ernst, the patch was “just a reminder that there’s nowhere that isn’t affected by humanity.” (Lindsey Hoshaw)

     Needless to say, I found this article to be, on the whole, exceedingly disturbing. I have always thought of the Pacific Ocean as an impossibly huge expanse of water, largely untouched by people.

     One of the main problems with our attitude towards the world is the fact that it has not adjusted recently enough, despite the fact that our role as a species in the world has changed significantly. In just a few hundred years, humans have filled in the corners of the map and explored and conquered most of the planet. Despite this, we still subconsciously feel like the underdogs.We seem to think that our actions make little to no impact on our surroundings.

    If we humans cannot rectify our world view, we are going to destroy our planet in a very short amount of time. Americans especially produce an excessive amount of waste per capita. This means that we are even more to blame for the havoc being wreaked on the Earth. 
    Our frontier is gone, and we now must preserve the space we have.

An Aversion to Sadness?

When we attended Lit Fest as a class on Friday, the woman from the Handsome Family group said one thing that particularly stuck with me. She said that she only liked to write songs that had some sadness and melancholy feelings in them. She also critisized Americans on the whole for having what she called "an aversion to sadness".

     Now, I personally would consider myself a very happy person on the whole, and I must admit that I pride myself on the fact. I like being happy and I feel better when I am smiling. Is everyone else not the same way? Isn't one of the goals of living to be happy?
      Scientists have shown that the simple act of smiling releases endorphins in your brain, which chemically improve your mood. Alan Hirsch, neurological director of the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago, says, "Endorphins are neurotransmitters produced in the brain that reduce pain...They have also been known to induce euphoria." (from your total health) 
      Reducing pain. Sounds great, right? Maybe not. "Creating" happiness just by smiling might make you feel good, but after a while it can feel a little bit shallow. Even simple happiness is a strange thing. "Happy" is one of those "easy" adjectives that most English teachers tell their students not to use in formal writing due to its lack of true description and depth. It's like the Froot Loops of describing words. 
     My personal theory of why Americans in particular have such a love of happiness: we have short attention spans. Being happy is easy, as we are attracted to bright lights, laughing people, and funny commercials and pop-ups. Actually taking the time to experience some "real" emotion is something that we might not all do. 
    But maybe it would be worthwhile.

Nicknames

Why the recent explosion of nicknames being doled out in our American Studies class? I cannot stop thinking about it for some reason, so I came up with three theories as to why Mr. Bolos and Mr. O’Connor refuse to call anyone by their given name (a habit which I find quite amusing, don’t get me wrong).

     Theory number one: they do this simply as a method of lightening the class atmosphere and to give us students something to laugh about in the midst of the fusion of English and history. I do not believe that this particular thought has much merit, though. We would find ways to smile in AS even without the periodic interjections of humorous names.

      Theory number two: when someone gives another person a nickname, they are simply projecting a bit of their own personality onto the other and making a construction of them. This new construction better suits the one giving the new name. For example, a nickname might represent only one small portion of the person's personality, or just be an embellishment on a particular part of their name that is fun or easy to say.

      I don't believe that there is anything wrong with putting a little bit of yourself into another person that you have to be able to relate to and nicknames help you to do this. Provided that the projection and constructions do not stray so far from the truth as to be inhibitors to perceptions of the real world.

      Finally, theory number three: Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos are using the nicknames as a teaching method, encouraging students to further question our world. Nearly everyone in our lives call us by the same given name. And who gave us this name in the first place? Our parents. So instead of making the atmosphere of American Studies exactly the same as every other aspect of our life that uses our "real names", our teachers decided that they would shake things up a little bit and through students off their guard by not assuming anything, including our own names.

    Now, once we come to question our names, questioning our identities follows soon after, seeing as almost anyone would respond to the question "Who are you?" with simply their name. And that is what American Studies is all about, of course! Question EVERYTHING!

      Am I reading too far into this? What are your thoughts?

Illegal Aliens on Halloween and Free Speech

This evening I read an article about a new Halloween costume that hit stores a few weeks ago and has already caused quite a stir in the media. (To see the full article click here.) The costume consists of an alien mask with an orange jumpsuit that says "Illegal Alien" on it. It also comes with a "Green Card", which actually makes the "alien" legal. The debate: Is this socially acceptable under the freedom of speech right, or politically incorrect and rude beyond words?
     The costume has been pulled from the shelves of Walgreens and Target, but some groups want the federal government to actually force all of the stores to eliminate the costumes. These groups claim that the costumes will increase anti-immigrant sentiments and possibly even dehumanize them. A speaker for the immigration coalition, Jorge-Mario Cabrera, said that this costume "perpetuates this idea we have about undocumented immigrants as alien foreigners, strangers, scary." And he has a valid point. Seeing someone in a mask already takes away some of their most human qualities and makes us regard them as not-quite-real. To have the mask in the shape of a remarkably inhuman face and to make it represent a certain type of people does seem unfair and racist towards this group.
       On the other hand, our Bill of Rights declares that every American has the right to freedom of speech. So shouldn't we be able to create and purchase any type of Halloween costume that we want? Most Hispanics, when interviewed by the Associated Press, even said that it was simply a joke and that it did not offend them.
     In my personal opinion, the government should not be able to make stores remove an offensive Halloween costume from their shelves. No one complains about Playboy Bunny costumes, which are at least equally offensive to women as this costume is to immigrants. If the stores themselves feel that the costumes are harmful to their patrons, they can get rid of the costumes themselves without any governmental aid.If the government can regulate Halloween costumes, what else will they begin to censor? Opinions?

Race, Defined

Every since we discussed the definition of race in class, I have been pondering it myself quite a bit. I have come to the conclusion that every human on earth must have a unique definition of race. If we all believed it to be the same thing, there would not be nearly as much argument about it.

         My own personal definition is: a combination of a person’s heritage and ancestry, which are usually observed in terms of beliefs, religion, and customs, and are often visible in more physical traits such as skin color, complexion, and mannerisms.

        Out of curiosity, I asked my parents for their own personal definitions after writing my own. My dad said he thought of race as, “a categorization of human beings based on genetic differences.....I think of it as a subset of species.” My mother agreed with him.

        The main difference in these two views lies in whether you believe race to be purely physical or to be a combination of physical and non-physical attributes. One perspective is not necessarily better, only different.

         People use race to classify others, but also to label themselves. In the midst of a crushing population of over six billion on earth, we each need at least a few things to make ourselves seem special and significant.

Some people are defined by their race. They connect so strongly with it that they cannot develop much individually. This is not healthy because it does not allow for any growth on the part of the individual. Conversely, others do not relate to their race at all, with is also not optimal. Without knowledge of one’s heritage, you have only yourself as an individual to relate to, rather than caring about any other people.

How do you define race? Does your race define you?

Obvserving Columbus Day

Tomorrow is Columbus Day, which, as we all know, is to celebrate the day when Christopher Columbus "discovered" the New World. Now, where I live we do not really observe Columbus day other than taking a long weekend, but I began to wonder how those of us who might not be so happy about this discovery would treat the holiday.    

     Seeing as Columbus's arrival in America was not a good thing for any of the native people currently living there, I find it a little bit upsetting that once every year we insist on reminding their few remaining ancestors Columbus discovered the land that they were already living on and that over the next four hundred years or so, they were systematically driven out to make way for the white settlers. 
      We tend to think that Columbus Day marks the beginning of a new era of colonization and world powers, but we try to forget that it also marks the end of a multitude of cultures. These cultures were largely undisturbed by outsiders.

      I learned that in many Latin American countries, the holiday is actually more of a celebration of culture and such, rather than that of a deceased European. I was especially fascinated to learn that in Venezuela, it is actually called The Day of Indigenous Resistance. 
     This brought a smile to my face, knowing that not everyone agrees with the Europeans. It's nice to know that at least one country would rather recognize the  civilization that was destroyed and make some effort to preserve it. 
      Why do we celebrate Columbus Day? Wasn't it a triumph for Spain, and not the European countries than most Americans are from?


In celebrating Columbus Day, are we hurting the Indigenous people?

Sentiments, Politics, Olympics?

Last Friday, the announcement came out: Chicago will not be the host city of the 2016 Summer Olympics. The First Lady Michelle Obama even spoke to the Olympic committee with no avail. (To see her speech, click here.)
     The NBC news report covering the announcement of the location seemed to be caught totally unprepared when Chicago lost the bid. They kept showing clips of crowds of shocked people who thought that they might have been about to party for their town. Whether or not we wanted to host the games, most people in Chicago took for granted that the games would be hosted here. Now that they aren't, we ask ourselves why.
     One theory is that anti-American sentiments took over at the convention, causing the one American city to be voted out of the running first. I found it disappointing that we, as a nation, would jump to such a conclusion. We never stopped to ask ourselves, "Oh, maybe Rio de Janeiro simply had a better bid than we did." Or, "Maybe since South America has never hosted the Olympics, they decided to give it a chance."
     Rather, we immediately assumed that the whole world was out to get us and shoot down our bid. I find it frustrating that, in a situation like this, politics get in the way of what should be a fun and internationally peaceful event.
     The people out in the streets ready to party knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that our city deserved to host, so of course we would be chosen. Is it possible that Chicagoans have developed a small sense of entitlement ever since Obama was elected president? Do we think too highly of ourselves?

Being American: Self-Importance and Expression

What does it mean to be an American? Seeing as this is the fundamental question of our American Studies class, I thought I would take a crack at it now. In writing these blogs, I think that we have already uncovered one very important element of the American condition.
      We, as individauls, are able to reach anyone with an internet connection in the entire world. According to http://www.ipligence.com/worldmap/ , North America is home to over half of all the internet access ports in the entire world. Not only that, but our internet here is unrestricted, unlike that in China, where government regulations forbid access to certain websites.

      This freedom of self-expression is one of the main factors causing the attitude of self-importance in America. I believe that in general, Americans today value themselves and their own well-being over that of the country as a whole.

     This does not necesarily mean that we are all selfish and is not necesarily a bad thing. In school we learn to think as individuals at a young age, as we write "All about me" papers every year for our early life. Teachers urge children to have self-worth and good self-esteem to promote mental health. Every day we are bombarded with the feel-good message: You are special.

      Personally I think that this attitidue that values the individual is good for our country. It promotes growth because everyone thinks differently, and therefore can disagree, argue, and come to a conclusion that is stronger than one reached by a single thinking entitiy. I do not mean to say that people in countries like China are like robots with no thought for themselves, only that Americans place an unusally high value on the individual.

     Vauling the individual so much does come at a price, however. The younger generations of America seem to be much less patriotic than their older counterparts. We care more about ourselves and our immediate surroundings and less about American pride. Is this simply the price of thinking for ourselves, or the indication of a serious attitude issue?

Tennis at Tiffany's

Recently as I was watching the U.S. Open, I was shocked at how much jewelry the female competetors were wearing. I wondered how they could hope to play their top tenis game with all of that jewelry weighing them down. One woman in particular was wearing large hoop errings, three long necklaces, and countless rings and Tiffany's bracelets. She was also wearing a very "fashionable" low-cut tennis top. Personally, if I were going to the US Open to win a major tennis championship, I would not want to be weighed down by a lot of dangling jewelry falling off of me.
      This situation made me consider a question that I think is of great importance to our society: Why do these women, who are obviously world-class professional athletes, feel the need to display their bodies in this way, even during competition?
      One theory that I have is that they feel better about themselves if they wear clothing and jewelry that shows them in their best light. They are appearing on national television in front of millions of people, so I can understand feeling a little bit insecure and maybe needing some extra support from a comfortable outfit.
      Another theory would be that these women feel as if they need to portray themselves as models and look just lika any other actor seen on TV. I find this particularly upsetting. Women should not feel the need to look their best at all times, especially if they are intense athletes such as these tennis players.
      Why are we so obsessed with appearence? Is this really a healthy way for society to behave?

Parents vs. Teachers: Who Can Censor?

In class today, we discussed the issue of President Obama's address to schoolchildren. Many parents were against the speech being broadcast in schools. Others were horrified that it might not be. School boards were caught in the middle.
        All of this just begs the question: who should be in charge of the material students learn in school? Should parents be allowed to influence the school's decisions?
       While in their own home a parent's word is law, anytime that parent sends their child out under another adult's supervision, they surrender a bit of the total control that they have over their child's media intake. It may be something as small as a child seeing a newspaper headline that their parent would have kept from them, or as large as another adult allowing the child to watch and R-rated movie. In any event, this child has now gained a little bit more knowlege of the world outside their parent's bubble, whether for better or worse.
       Similarly, whenever a parent sends their child off to enjoy that public education, they are trusting the school system to make good choices for their child in terms of what they may view. Personally, I believe that the school systems around here have exceedingly good judgement.
     Generally, when a parent has too large a role in their child's life, it stunts that child's growth as an individual, making him/her dependent and self-insufficient. This is not healthy, and a good parent's main concern should be the good health of their child. Thus, the only time a parent should intervene with a school's selected media is when they feel as if their child's health is legitametely in danger. Otherwise, stand back and let the system do its job.

The 2012 Obsession

  Over the weekend I was watching TV with my brother, flipping channels disinterestedly, when something caught my attention. Frightened people ran around madly. The subtitles read, "How would the governments of our planet prepare six billion people for the end of the world?". The answer: "They wouldn't." Then the year 2012 flashed across the screen and it went black. I sat, stunned, hoping that what I had just seen was a movie trailer and not some ill-conceived public service announcement.

      Luckily, it was no more that preview for a new winter blockbuster titled 2012 (you can view the trailer here: http://www.whowillsurvive2012.com/) but it did raise a few concerns. I enjoy watching doomsday thrillers just as much as the next person, but perhaps this last feature from the director who brought us Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow has gone just a bit too far. This day of reckoning (the exact date happens to be December 21, 2012) is over three years off, yet some groups of people are already forming cults and making survival plans.

     Before we become too caught up in stocking doomsday shelters, let's get our facts right. The Mayan calendar does in fact end on the 21st, however the 21st is also the winter solstice, a day which the Mayans would have been able to predict and would have considered important (http://www.2012endofdays.org/Mayan/Mayan-Calendar.php). Some theorists say that the prophet Nostradamus also predicted the end of the world on this date, but his prophecies are vague at best and can be interpreted in many different ways. Lastly, the sun will reach the peak of its eleven year cycle, sun sunspots, solar flares, and other sun activity will be at an 11-year high. Fortunately for us, this does happen ever eleven years, so most of the world's population has lived through it before.

      I have been trying to figure out why we are so obsessed with humanity's demise. Is it our own self-importance to think that we matter enough to be the last generation? About thirty years ago, many people believed that we were on the verge of a nuclear holocaust. Why then?

      So we return to my initial horror at seeing the commercial on TV. I was not worried because I actually thought the world was coming to an end. My fear budded from the endless ways the other six billion people on the planet will react to this message. Will there be chaos? Suicide? Peace? Are the producers and directors of this movie partially responsible for any harm that comes from their work?