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.