Context?

A couple of days ago, my dad, brother, and I went to see Valkyrie (good movie, by the way). When we got to the movie house, it was too early, and we 'accidentally walked into' (because I would never movie hop) the theater that was playing Seven Pounds (another good movie). I had seen the movie before with friends so I was able to recognize which part the movie was at and the context it was in. However, my dad and brother did not. By the time, we left the theater to go to our movie, my brother made a comment, saying that he thought the movie wasn't great at all from the part that he saw.

So of course, being the nerd I am, thought about our English class. I know Hayakawa said that it was necessary to have context, but just how much context is enough? I know that someone can't know the 'entire' situation, but how much is adequate to make someone understand what you want them to?

Mary Quien

Stubborn Perceptions

I am currently celebrating the holiday season along with seventeen family members in the warm state of Florida. This Christmas not only served as a heart-warming holiday, but also as a long-awaited family reunion! So, I'm sure that you guys know the drill. Whenever some new relative arrives, there are greetings to be delivered. And with these three kisses on the cheek come exclamations of astonishment.

Oh my, how you've grown!
Goodness, you used to be so shy!
When did you get so loud?
You used to be wise like your father...what happened?

Alright, I'm kidding about the last one, but you guys know what I mean. Some of these relatives I have not had the chance to see for some time now. Their perceptions of me are ones representative of the past. They remember a younger Sam, one that was quite different than the one that exists now. So my question is: How readily are perceptions changed? Are they engraved in stone or malleable clay? Does it depend on the person? Also, what sorts of perceptions are more difficult to erase and renew? Which are the easiest?

I feel that newer, younger generations are more able to change their perceptions/views about people, places, and things. Can this generalization be made, or is it too far of a stretch? Just wondering.

(Samantha Maliha)

American Dream Essay Discussion

We were debating the merits of our positions on the discussion topic posed by the American Dream Unit Essay we wrote earlier this week.

Steve on the one hand theorized that the "American Dream" is to a degree an exercise in hypocrisy, depending on the degree of imbalance of self-interest and materialism evident in the contemporary experience. Arvind postulated that education and technology maintained the American Dream's legitimacy by supplying many citizens with the tools to become successful.

What are your responses on the merits of our positions?

(Arvind and Steve)

Buster the Dog

So I was at this concert this past week. It was a charity event where the money from the tickets and collections would be given to this learn to read program in Philadelphia.

I bring this up because during the intermission of the concert, the priest (the concert was held in a church) stood up and gave a speech about the organization. The thing is, he wasn't alone. He brought up a Buster with him, a dog. Of course, this caught everyone's attention. What's the dog for? Well, before talking about the organization, the priest said, "This is Buster. He's here to make you feel sorry for us and donate money." Even at the end of his speech, the priest said, "And if you still have any doubts about donating, just look at Buster." Both times, the audience just laughed at the comments, but it got me thinking. Was that an effective way to get people to donate? It is really more effective to say that you're trying to trick people?

Mary Quien

Are Dreams Really Worth It?

Those of us taking Spanish 5 are reading a play in Spanish class right now about a man and a woman who pretend to be the son and daughter-in-law of an older woman whose grandson ran away twenty years ago. She was so distraught that her husband began sending fake letters to her from her grandson, first apologizing, then, over the course of twenty years, telling the occurrences of his life, etc. Then twenty years after he ran away, the real grandson sent a cable informing his grandparents he was coming home... but the boat he was traveling in sank, and all the passengers died. So, basically, the grandmother knew none of this, only that her grandson was coming to see her. So the grandfather went to an organization asking a young man to pose as his grandson. He does, and asks another girl to play the role of his wife. This young man memorizes all of the notes the grandfather had sent to the grandmother, knowing exactly what his fake life is like. When he gets to the grandmother's house, she questions him endlessly, making sure he's the real grandson. She says she spent the past twenty years following his travels and adventures, studying architecture as he prepared for his exams, etc. All goes well until the real grandson appears, claiming to have come on another boat, so as to avoid being followed by the police. He is a theif-- the exact opposite of what the grandmother had spent twenty years imagining. The grandmother is heartbroken.

Now that you have the basis of the story, I'd like to relate it to what we've been discussing in class concerning Willy's and Gatsby's dreams. Willy wanted to be a great salesman, got to the end of his life and realized that he had spent his whole life working at a job he wasn't suited for. Gatsby spent five years of his life idolizing Daisy and trying to find a way to get her back. Similarly, the grandmother in this story spend twenty years of her life imagining her grandson, and the man he had become. How devastating it was for her to find out that the grandson she had spent twenty years of time and energy getting to know was not even real! Gatsby finally reunited with Daisy after five years only to find that she was not the person he had imagined her to be and idolized her as.

So, one of the ideas we've been discussing in class is the question of whether or not this "merciful lie" was worth it in the end. Was twenty years of stalling the truth ultimately worth it? Similarly, were those five years that Gatsby spent idolizing and adoring Daisy ultimately worth the end result? Is the dream worth the price we pay when we finally realize that it's just that, a dream?

Emily T.

Living in the Past

Well, I know that this post is a bit late (too busy doing vocab and such), but I was wondering about what was said in class about living in a certain time. I think it was Grace that was talking about choosing to live in the present, but is that even possible?

Every action we make is somehow connected to the past, right? 'Well what about a reflex?' you might ask. Well, even though you aren't thinking about what you're doing, isn't your body doing something that it remembers from the past? And even though you may not be thinking of it consciously, you do and say things that you is related to the past. For example, you are playing basketball in gym. Someone just passed you the ball and you go to pass it to someone else. Now, once you have the ball in your hands, for a split second, aren't you thinking about who to pass it to, thinking about what has happened when you passed it to a certain person before?

Basically, this is my point: we're always living in the past. I think that we can think about the future and the present, but for the most part, our minds exist in the past.

Mary Quien

Charlie Brown and Christmas

Its Connor, in class some of people talked about disconnection and disillusionment from the holiday season. Someone mentioned that for them Christmas was nice, but it only really lasts 5 minutes on Christmas morning when they tear the wrapping paper off. I started watching a Charlie Brown Christmas tonight and it got me thinking about the increasing commercialization of the entire holiday season. It is regrettable if the holiday is over for you as soon as the presents have been opened. For me personally, the holiday lasts through the entire break and includes traveling up and down the East coast visiting relatives. Spending the time to take a break with friends and family is part of what makes it great. Spending time together with giving gifts as the backdrop is a wonderful thing. However, it is becoming less about giving and more about getting. I worked hard this year to get everyone in my family a present that they did no necessarily need nor expect. Less predictability during the holiday season makes it more fun. Focus on receiving gifts caused by increased commercialization seems to be detracting from the true value of the holiday season. For many its becoming less about family and time together, and more about that package weakly hidden in the back of the closet.

Control

So, Mr. Lazarow and I shared somewhat of a brainwave today. (Maybe I am doing something right afterall..) Anyway..I wanted to expound on the topic during class, but we ran out of time.

Basically, we love power. We crave it. We do subtle things to increase our store of it. But still, we remain human. The only power we have (most of us, at least) is control over our own lives. Thus, we seize this opportunity and try to make the best of it. We define our past experiences in such a way that we claim to "learn from our mistakes," which in my own personal world seems like empty talk. Few are those who actually learn from the past. This is just a quick example: After we lost our two fellow high schoolers last winter, I sensed a change was coming about. Maybe friends and loved ones would learn the consequences of their harmful actions. Wishful thinking. On the contrary, young men and women returned to their unhealthy ways a mere few months after the tragedies occurred.

Anyway, back to the original point. We have learned that our control is exercised through the future and how it is affected by the past. Thus, we define them by our own terms. We plan and we look forward to things of our own doing, of our own will. We look back on memories that we have made. It's quite psychological. This is how we control our very own American Dream...we plan it all, we build up to it, until POOF, we reach the long-desired light at the end of the tunnel (similar to Gatsby's case) and find out that, well, we never really wanted it. Then, and only then, do we blame others. It was "so and so's" fault that I took this route!

Wrong. It was your fault. Humans need to learn how to deal with their own downfalls...me, included.

(Sam Maliha)

Competition, is it that bad?

Hey it's Jenn

Today in class we discussed about the diverse interpretations of the American Dream. Although the definition of the phrase may vary to everyone, in the end all the arrows are directed toward the question 'who made it and who didn't?' There are numerous ways to acheive what one would call a 'success', but everyone agrees that competition follows every success.

The word competition often has a negative connotation. We, as a society, denounces those who reach the top after defeating all the competitors. Yes, sometimes people who are above the rest use brutal methods to crush the rivals, but we all have self-interest. Jealousy and fear are just embedded in human nature. Honestly, if those people who haven't yet achieved their goals were granted the opportunity, they would compete as brutally and have no problem when they later become successful. However, we still call others 'overachievers' or 'ruthless barons'.

Even in the U.S. Constitution, equality is strongly emphasized. If equal opportunity is that important, then why are we still pursuing capitalism? The Constitution obviously implies that getting ahead for you own benefit is bad since you are almost discriminating those who are below you. Isn't the Consititution contradicting itself and also being hypocritical?

Why is the society believing that competition is bad(and why does it impose its view on us...i.e.Constitution)? After all, without competition, there will be hardly any progress. Is fighting for what you want really that bad?

Good night!
(Jennifer Park)

The American Dream

Hey guys, Connor again, I thought some more about what was said in class today and now that I think about, the concept of the American Dream as a whole took a pretty good bashing. People seemed to say that it was regionalized, out of date, and misleading. The American Dream itself, is not only different in meaning to each person, but the general sense of the word is also constantly evolving and adapting as time passes. In general terms, it refers to the achievement of an individual's goals in life through hard work and perseverance. Originally this goal was definitely regionalized and associated solely with the US. We especially think of early immigrants coming here, it is true that many of them did face crowding, discrimination, and hardship here, but that is equally comparable to what many of them left. Look at the greatest waves of immigration in our history. Was it better back in Ireland during the great potato famine when people were dying b the thousand? Was it better for a second son in England who could not inherit property and was more or less on his own in an area more overcrowded and with little to no unowned land? No, despite hardships we have learned about faced by these immigrants, in many cases it was still preferable to what they were leaving. And that's why they kept coming.
Today, I think that it has taken on a more universal meaning. I was watching a news report the other day. They were interviewing a young French man. In France there is a government mandated 40 hour maximum work week for most citizens. The boy was complaining, he said that it limited his own opportunity to advance himself and that he wanted the opportunity to pursue his own version of the American Dream. The concept in itself is one of the things America has come to stand for. I think that it is something that should be valued.

Success

Hey guys, its Connor, some of the things Mr. Lazarow said in class today caught my attention. When discussing the American Dream, the topic of society, parents especially, imposing a view of success on children. He said something about parents and society in general imposing a view of success on kids, and parents saying that they must pass the bar set by their parents. To me it sounded as if he viewed this with an extremely negative connotation. My question is, is it really bad for a parent to want their kids to have a better life than they did? Is a parent's intent good and genuine or is it another competition in the eyes of the parent? I personally do not see how something like that is rooted in fear or jealousy. I think that these standards and the motivation they provide is not done out of competition. Is it a bad thing for a parent to want success for their child? Is it bad that our parents want us to have better lives and pushing us to achieve that? There are definitely cases in which this pressure has had negative effects on kids and they were pushed to the edge. Maybe the intentions of most parents are good, but the practices of some are wrong. I think that I am beginning to lose what I am trying to say as I write more and more. My root question is, is it bad that our parents impose their own definition of success on us? What do you think?

The Crucible

So as I watched the Crucible last night I noticed something. In the last scene John Proctor refused to sign the confession and give it back to the deputy governor. He said something along the lines of 'I've given you my soul but I refuse that you take my name," (sorry if that was a bad attempt at paraphrasing), and it made me think immediately of Hayakawa. Hayakawa writes continuously of the perceived importance of names, though they are truly only symbols. People seem to be incapable of differentiating the name from the thing. Proctor's refusal to sign his name seemed evidence of this. Admittedly, he already felt shame for confessing, but it seems odd that he would go against his principles but protest only to giving his name. This led me to wonder why his name was so important to him. It almost seemed as if he felt that signing his name and then giving them his confession would give them ownership of him. Proctor kept saying that he would not allow for them to use him. But wouldn't confessing alone allow him to be used as an example? They didn't really need the signed paper to say "Look, we're merciful. Proctor confessed and we spared his life. We're not the enemy," which seemed to be the purpose of their attempts to get him to confess. So I suppose my main question about it is, how is it that the signature would so drastically change the situation? Proctor would already be giving them what they wanted by confessing. Was it just the straw that broke the camel's back. Was it that he could only allow himself to give up some much of his self-respect and the act of signing would be too much? Or was it his attachment to the name itself? Did he feel that by giving them his name he would be left with nothing (well, nothing except his life).

And just one other thought. John's belief of his name's importance was shown earlier in the play as well. When he confessed to adultery he told the deputy he could believe it was the truth because he wouldn't "give up his good name" for a lie. I know we don't typically talk about the thematic elements of literary works but I was just wondering if anyone thought this was foreshadowing? I may well have just created that idea in my head because both parts made me think of Language in Thought and Action but I was curious.

Sorry if this post is not very clearly written. I was having difficulty remembering the exact lines that I noticed.
(Molly Dunbar)

The Crucible: Intensionally Framing Us?

Last night, many of us attended the Cherry Hill East production of The Crucible. It was well acted and skillfully done, but as I was watching the play, I began to wonder...Does watching Cherry Hill East's interpretation of The Crucible limit our future intensional perception of it, when we read the play?

Essentially, are our intensional maps of The Crucible locked in or constrained because we watched another group's interpretation of it first? For example, whenever John Proctor's name comes up in my future reading of The Crucible, I will instinctively picture the actor who played him, and his onstage personality. Won't my intensional perspective of the character John Proctor be strongly influenced by the actor who played John Proctor? Of course, we can still use our imaginations while reading the actual play, but doesn't seeing someone else's extensional interpretation of a work already frame what we can see intensionally?

That's one reason why I much prefer reading books to seeing movies. When you watch a movie, someone else's perspective is already framing how you see the events depicted in the movie. Within that frame, we can offer interpretations of the movie, but aren't we already limited? But when you read a book, you are much freer to come up with your own intensional perception and interpretation of the events, without outside influence. If you watched Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the movie), you weren't really seeing Harry Potter up there on the big screen. You were watching Daniel Radcliffe's interpretation of Harry Potter, as directed by Alfonso Cuarón. Of course, in reading the book version, we still are somewhat framed in our view of Harry by Rowling's descriptions of him, but much less so than a movie would.

Thoughts?
(Eric Wei)

History...repeats itself?

One of the major movements of the Enlightenment was the study of history. The philosophes found themselves questioning veritability and the difference between good and evil. Prominent was the question, "How did we get here?"

Dr. Bjornstad made mention that current day politicians touch up on their history in hopes of applying processes from the past to current day situations. Apparantly Barack Obama is "touching up on his Lincoln". So, what if he does? What if he becomes an expert on Abraham Lincoln's presidential term? How will that help us today?

I pose this question merely because of our study in S.I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action. According to the author, no two contexts are ever identical. How, then, can an event that occured during Lincoln's term in the nineteenth century possibly assist the president in his current duty in the twenty-first century? Due to my background in semantics, I would feel uncomfortable to say that history "repeats" itself. I understand that aspects may correlate, but I don't believe that they could ever be identical. This is an obvious point, it seems. Why haven't the politicians caught on? I'm just curious.

(Sam Maliha)

Destiny etc.

I don't want to offend anyone since it seemed like many of you believed in destiny (at least to an extent) from today's discussion in class but I have some thoughts.

Couldn't destiny be seen as a sort of self protection mechanism? It seems to me that many believe that all things happen for a reason because they can't deal with the possibility that it's all random. Humans are all faced with many horrific facts throughout their lifetimes. If one believes that every one of these atrocities happens for a reason, it would be much easier to process. For example, earlier, a few weeks ago I read an article about a twelve year old girl from Malawi who's parents had both died. She struggled to work and feed herself and her siblings. If this was not upsetting enough, her younger brother (who was only 5) had recently contracted malaria and was in dire condition. Trying to process that things like this happen is very difficult for some. It seems to me that simply saying it was destiny, or that it happened for a reason, is a sort of emotional cop-out. People choose to believe that this and everything is fated because if there is no reasoning behind it, it simply cannot be comprehended.

I'm not trying to insult those who believe in destiny, I just can't believe that everyone has a single fate that they must reach. We talked about this idea in Art after leaving English today and I've come to the conclusion that we do the best with what we're given genetically and through our life experience. And our choices, not our fate guide the course of our lives. There is no eventual fate for each person, in all likelihood there are a number of different careers, a number of different lifestyles that could make each person happy. I'm sure some people are more innately talented at certain skills than others, but I still don't believe that theirs only one destiny for each person.

Of course, all of this is simply my opinion and I probably need about 1000 more qualifiers but... thoughts?

(Molly Dunbar)

Alternative Universe

So Mr. Lazarow started talking about the alternative universe theory and I thought I'd bring it up on the blog. (yes, fun... I know)

Basically, there are two similar universes that this theory creates. And whenever you make a decision in this universe, the opposite of that decision was made in the other universe. Now, I have a few questions that go along with this: How do I know that the other 'me' in the other universe isn't the one making the decision first? In this sense, is the other 'me' the one who is deciding our destiny?

Also, the discussion about destiny reminded me of the adventure books we would read as kids. You would read a prompt and then have to decide between two choices and continue along with the story you 'chose' until you came to a conclusion. This reminded once more of the alternative universe theory. Every time we make a choice aren't we faced with different circumstances than those of the other choice? If I chose to steal a candy bar, the circumstances would be different than if I hadn't. Therefore, how is the other 'me' able to pick the exact opposite choice every time? Is someone else created every time I make a choice? Or is there just some random person in the alternative universe that makes the opposite choice?

Mary Quien

Persistence vs. Ablity

Some of us who took the SAT this weekend had an essay on whether persistence is more important to success than ability. I started thinking about this in class today when we were talking about destiny. One side of the arguement is that some people are born to do something and they figure out what that is and they are good at it. That their interests coincide with their skills. The other side is that people are born with free will and can decide to do whatever they want.

I think one thing that often happens is people like what they are already good at because, who doesn't like feeling like they are good at something? While its true some people really like something that they have to work really hard for, I think is is common for people to develop a desire to pursue a job that they are already naturally good at. Example: I don't understand chemistry because I have to deal with things that are not physical objects but more molecules. So I'm not good at chemistry so I wouldn't pursue a job in that area because I don't like the feeling of being the one who doesn't get it. However Physics deals with things I can see so I'm good at it. I naturally understand it and "get it" better than other people around me. So I would be more inclined to take a job in Physics.

This weekend I argued that with persistence you can achieve almost anything and you will feel more successful in the end because you had to work harder for what you want than the person who is naturally skilled. I talked about field hockey. Freshmen year there were 50 girls in our grade who played. This year there were only 18. Personally, I liked it better this way because only the girls who really wanted to be there were left. We were the girls who, even if we didn't have the best innate skills, could perservere and come out better players in the end. I'm not a naturally good runner but I worked really hard this season the come in faster every time we ran a perimeter. And I think I get a lot more pleasure out of improving my time then a certain someone who is always first because she has zero body fat and a natural born runner. As I mentioned earlier though, I wouldn't want to try to become a proffessional runner or field hockey player because I don't like not being the best at something. I would rather pursue something where I have particularly exceptional skill.

The age-old question of nature vs. nuture again. Do we start with a blank slate and then are influenced by our environment? Or are we born to be something? Is there such a thing as Destiny? Can we ever know the answer to these questions? Well, we can at least have fun trying.

(Kelley Volosin)

"American Dream" vs "American Reality"?

Seeing as how a large number of us recently spent our last 4 days at YMC, I find it pertinent to relate our "American Dream" unit and semantics to our experiences there. We debated and discussed our views on how American was intended to operate and currently operates, problems with the current system, and ways to fix this.  I think everyone who went has a great opportunity to relate how semantics affected their experience at Yale.

In my personal expereince I encountered semantics everywhere I turned in commitee and full, from the wording of the legislation to how people chose to express themselves when they spoke to the delegates. As was discussed in the semantics unit, politics involves the highest levels of abstraction. I found that even I, who was conciously aware of this fact, did this during discussions. In order to get our points across and have them accepted by everyone else, the flaws in the arguement were avoided by shifting to high abstraction to avert confrontation. 

At the moment I am too exhausted from MC to think of specific examples, but I wanted to post this idea as soon as I had it so others could benefit from the discussion. When I regain control of my mind I'm sure I'll have more to say.

(Steve Szumski)

"Work" and "The American Dream"

In our class discussion of Piercy's "To Be of Use" this morning, we began to wonder what exactly is meant by WORK. I just want to add a couple of my thoughts here.

A number of you mentioned that there is always an ultimate goal or purpose involved in "working". I agree with this idea wholeheartedly. However, I am not sure if there is a single goal/purpose that can encompass all manner of work. I am not convinced that we can state such a "universal" goal/purpose of work, because "work" is merely what one defines it to be, and while one person may consider a certain activity as "work," another person may disagree. In essence, there is always the issue of conflicting definitions due to variances in peoples' extensional and/or intentional worlds.

Yet at the same time, I feel as if there should be some way to describe a universal goal/purpose of work. If I think about why people generally "work," I can note certain commonalities between these motives or reasons (wealth, satisfaction, prestige, etc.). This then makes me realize that we should in fact be able to state a universal goal/purpose of work. Moreover, I think that this universal goal/purpose of work (whether or not it actually exists) would be related to "The American Dream." But indeed, the two terms "work" and "The American Dream" are at the top of the abstraction ladder, so perhaps I am not really drawing much of a conclusion.

What are your thoughts about a "universal" goal/purpose of work, and if it exists, its possible relation to "The American Dream"?

(Janet Lee)

Tabula Rasa

While listening to Dr. Bjornstad's lecture today, a light bulb went off in my mind. The Scientific Revolution was the gateway to the Englihtenment which gave way to...Language in Thought and Action? It's an odd connection, I know, but let me explain.

The glue that holds these events together is none other than John Locke. Lockian movements emphasize the ideal behavior of humans in general: equal rights to mankind, human nature is contrary to war-like states, etc.. These are not the ideas which I am looking to connect to Hayakawa.

Locke presented the idea of the blank slate, or tabula rasa. It expressed the notion that humans are not born with innate behavioral standards. Original sin did not exist. He believed one's character, one's blank slate, to be shaped by external environments to which one has been subjected. Like Hayakawa, Locke believed that each person's internal map varied by means of their extensional and intensional experiences.

I just found this observation to be interesting. Yes, it's simple..but I believe it to be noteworthy.

P.S. Whenever I think of "tabula rasa," all I can picture is the 12 Days of the Enlightenment video that Dr. Bjornstad showed to the class.

(Samantha Maliha)

Our current economic condition?

I was reading a Newsweek article yesterday that reminded me multiple times of things that we have discussed in class. The title of the article is "Don't Get Depressed, It's Not 1929", by Daniel Gross, I thought it would be interesting to bring up: http://www.newsweek.com/id/170340. The point of this article was to assure people that the recession we are in right now is not a replay of the Great Depression, and most likely won't end up being as bad.

One of the first things I noted as I read the article was this quote: "Financial executives invoke distant history in part to make up for their own recent shortcomings." Great move on the part of the politicians! The easiest way to remove blame is to direct attention as far away as possible. The way politicians have done this recently is to distract the American public and have them dwell on thoughts about the Great Depression, which was how many years ago? How many of us were around when it happened? There are very few people who would remember the Great Depression, therefore making us dependent on what politicians and the media tell us/want us to believe. "The farther away we are, the greater (and less accurate) the generalizations we make." Abstractions-- another tactic that politicians use-- they can be very effective.

Another quote that caught my attention was "Analogies help us place things in context." Accounting for this, it makes sense that politicians would want to compare our current recession with something, so that we understand it better. But, by trying to express the gravity of the situation to us by comparing it to the Great Depression, is the impression that we are getting incorrect? Another thing that Daniel Gross mentions is that "The specter of the 1930s has also been deployed by political leaders to create a sense of urgency." But have they gone too far?

Two other things that caught my attention, that I mention just as side notes-- one was the reference to Studs Terkel, "the great chronicler of the voices of the Depression." The other was a reference to Russia in terms of the economic crisis. It is mentioned briefly that Russia is not really working with the U.S. to cope with the economic situation... this reminded me of the article Jenn brought up.

It's amazing how the media (in this case, Newsweek) works against itself in some ways, as in, Daniel Gross pointing out some of the tactics that politicians use to get us to believe what they want us to believe. In some ways, the media sort of cancels itself out-- I guess that's why it's important to get information from multiple sources...

Emily T.

When I first read "What's That Smell in the Kitchen" I got the impression that this was not a poem meant to incite women to action as much as it was meant to warn men. I did not view the burnt dinners as something preconceived meant to be cooked in rebellion, but, rather, an accident that could potentially result in conflict. I originally saw this poem as a threat of war.

My thought was not that women burned dinners in order to anger the men/husbands and prove a point, but, rather, that the burnt dinners were honest mistakes. The women would serve a burnt dinner and the men would be ungrateful for the hard work and labor that the women had put into cooking the dinner. This could certainly result in a conflict-- if you were to spend time cooking dinner for a family only to have an ungrateful husband turn it down, wouldn't you be angry?

I feel that this poem is insight into the mind of a woman on a small scale. A woman (as all people) likes to be appreciated and likes to have her work appreciated. It's almost as though this poem is what is racing through a woman's mind as she waits to hear how her husband responds to the fact that his dinner is burned. I think what this poem is saying from a woman's perspective to a man is this: "If you take me for granted one more time, it's war!" I see this as a threat of war, though, not the war itself. I see this poem as a warning to men and husbands that they should be grateful and not take for granted all of the things their wives do for them because most likely their wives will not be able to repress their hard feelings forever.

Now, having already discussed this in class, my original thoughts were kind of shattered by something that seemed to make more sense, especially taking into consideration the fact that the author worked on behalf of women, most likely not just to threaten husbands, but to incite women to action, as well.

Emily T.

Unfulfilled in America

As I read Death of a Salesman this weekend, I couldn't help but ask this question... is incessant longing and being unsatisified inherent in American culture and American literatue?

I'm getting a lot of Catcher in the Rye vibes from this play, and I think this stems from both the time period in which they were written and the atmosphere of unattainable self-fulfillment permeating each. This is incredibly depressing but makes for excellent literature.

I was reminded of Mr. Lazarow's comments on the differentiating tides of idealism and realism that fluctuate back and forth, depending on what time period we're in. We're either grasping for an America that will never be, or we're admitting that it's foolish to have such impractical dreams. Either way, the idea of "America" is unattainable. Could this be because of the social boundries we've set up for ourselves?

Think about it. In our culture, self-fulfillment is rarely achieved. The standard is to always want more, either in the material sense or the spiritual sense. The Willy Loman, the "everyman", works his whole life without ever truly being satisfied. His dreams do not fit the confines of his parameters. They only grow and grow with each tiny failure, each step towards the grave. Even though the American ideal is to work hard to get where you want to be, few people ever get to where they want to be, either because they cannot define true satisfaction, or simply do not have to means to achieve their lofty goals.

Thoughts?

(Tylaor Bruke) *Your mind automatically rearranges words as long as you have the first and last letters of them. An interesting sidenote on how the brain processes the written word.*

The ship that never docks..

As I was reading a passage of an article, I was able to readily draw a connection between Lorna Dee Cervantes' "Refugee Ship" and the writing at hand. The excerpt is as follows:

"Choice of language frequently plays a significant role in the development of the Hispanic American writer's voice and message. "I lack language," wrote Cherrie Moraga, author of Loving in the War Years: lo que munca paso por sus labios. The use of two languages in the title itself expresses the difficulty that the author perceives in narrating personal experience in one language when one has lived in another."

This, undoubtedly, relates to the discussion that we stumbled upon last week. I feel that all of our perceptions are easily combined into this simple, little paragraph that I have discovered, purely by luck. I love when things connect! I had a 'Eureka' moment and simply had to share.

Cervantes was so torn between her two heritages that she found it necessary to include the last line in her Spanish tongue. The signifigance here is impossible to ignore.

(Sam Maliha)

The Symbol vs. The Symbolized...Again.

As I was looking ahead at the next few poems that we will soon discuss in class, a great idea struck me. Two of these works, Yusef Komunyakaa's "Facing it" and Billy Collins' "The Names", seem to form a connection with S.I. Hayakawa's research on semantics. I am surprised as to why I did not see the connection upon my initial analysis of the poems.

Yusef Komunyakaa served in the Vietnam War and acquired a taste for writing upon his return to the United States. He published a book of poems about his experience in Vietnam (Dien Cai Dau), ending with the poem "Facing It", included in this chapter of our Literature for Composition book. In this piece of writing, Komunyakaa agonizes over the 58,022 names etched into the black granite of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial located in Washington, D.C. He looks at the name of a former comrade and forms a connection between a word and a painful memory. To him, the name represents something more than a name; it is an emotion, an irreversible event. He feels that the symbolized (the dead) is inseparable from its symbol (the names).

I touch the name Andrew Johnson;
I see the booby trap's white flash.
(Komunyakaa, Lines 17-18)

Billy Collins was inspired to write "The Names" on the first anniversary of the destruction of the Twin Towers (September 11, 2002). He progresses throughout the poem, giving names of victims, mentioning one for each letter of the alphabet. To the author, the symbolized, or owner of the name, no longer exists, yet the symbol remains, ready to keep the memory of the deceased alive. Does he not believe, then, that the symbol and symbolized are not a single entity, that they may be separated?

(let X stand, if it can, for the ones unfound)
[Collins, Line 42]
Here, the "X" is nothing more than a symbol of what had once existed.

Thus, I have drawn the conclusion that Yusek Komunyakaa would disagree thoroughly with Hayakawa's views of the symbol vs. the symbolized. On the other hand, however, it seems as if Billy Collins would heartily agree. These are merely my perceptions.

I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving!

(Samantha Maliha)

The Supermarket

So I didn't have a chance to bring this up in class so I decided to bring it up in the blog. It's about the adjectives Allen Ginsberg chose to describe Walt Whitman: childless and a lonely old grubber. I think that he chose these words to emphasize how he is viewed differently from everyone else.

In the previous paragraph, Ginsberg seems to create the image of what is 'normal' in a family: a man, a woman, and children. The words seem to just point out that he is lacking such elements in his life. Thoughts?

Also, while on the topic of the poem, what do you guys think a good essay topic would be? I guess one could be about acceptance in society...
I don't know. Other ideas would be appreciated.

Mary Quien

An interesting article that I read....

Hi, it's Jenn

I read an article today titled "Russian Analyst Predicts Decline and Breakup of U.S."(http://en.rian.ru/world/20081124/118512713.html)

Basically a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affars says in an interview that U.S. will soon collapse and as a result, Russia and China will replace the U.S.'s role as a world dominant power.

Panarin, the professor, mentions that the "vulnerable political setup" and the "lack of unified national laws and divisons among the elite" will become clear in this time of crisis.

He also predicts that the U.S. will break up into 6 parts: the Pacific coast (with its growing Chinese populations), the South(with Hispanics), Texas, the Atlantic Coast, 5 poor central states (Native Americans), and the northern states influenced by Canada.
He even suggests that Russia could reclaim Alaska(Oh no, not Wasilla) since it was only granted on lease.

How do you guys think about this article? In fact, I laughed a little while I was reading it but after I was done I wondered if current economic crisis will possibly lead to the decline of U.S. dominance in the international community. I mean America got through the Great Depression, right?

Jared Diamond, a Pulitzer Prize Winning Professor at UCLA, wrote that 3 Factors that cause civilizations to fall are environmental change, economic instability, and disruption in food production. Do you feel as if we are even close to this point? Will America's nightmare become real?

(Jennifer Park)

Buy Nothing Day

I read OurSpace: Resisting the Corporate Control of Culture for our book review. They talked a lot about Adbusters which is a group which tries to show consumers how corporations are controlling them. And one method they mentioned was by advocating a Buy Nothing Day which they conveniently place on Black Friday and the weekend after Thanksgiving when all the big companies have "early bird deals" and pretty much boast about crazy sales which turn out to only cause you to spend more money.

So I logged on the Facebook today and saw on the homepage Buy Nothing Day, hosted by Adbusters. The location is the whole world. They really want to show corporations that people still have some control over what they buy. They say, "For 24 hours you will detox from consumerism and live without mindless, needless shopping. Anyone can take part provided they spend a day without spending (mindlessly)!" People started to complain that this would cause a problem with the economy so they later clarify that you don't have to buy nothing just refrain from buying things you don't need and try to shop at local small businesses. So far about 22,000 people have said they will attend this and I'm sure this number will increase.

If you want to learn more information about Buy Nothing Day then go to http://www.buynothingday.info/main.html

I am neither for nor against Buy Nothing Day. I agree with the point they are trying to make. Does anybody have any thoughts on Buy Nothing Day?

Refugee Ship

Today in class we began to discuss possible essay prompts that might complement Cervantes' "Refugee Ship" on the AP Exam. I just want to suggest a couple more here on which I require your opinions.

Might there be a prompt such as, "To what extent does one's semantic environment affect one's perception of his/her identity?" Or is this question too vague?

How about a question such as, "To what extent is a person's perception of his/her identity a reflection of his/her cultural heritage?"

In general, how would we go about answering such questions that follow a poem on the exam? Would we need to make specific references to the poem at hand or would we focus solely on wider application? I plan to ask Mr. Lazarow, but if any of you have some ideas, please feel free to offer them.

What thoughts do all of you have? What other "poem prompts" might be on the exam?

(Janet Lee)

The White Man's Blunder?

In class, we've been discussing The White Man's Burden and examples, causes, and effects of imperialism and help from "superiors". We've generally agreed that those who find themselves to be "superior" (British imperialists...)tend to want to "help" (assimilate, Christianize...) those who are "inferior" (African villages, non-Christian countries). We've also questioned what their motives were for doing so. Is it to genuinely help those they deem less fortunate? Or do they simply want an economic/political gain and they use benevolence as a cover? However, something we haven't discussed as much is what their "philanthropic" deeds actually accomplish.

This confuses me greatly. The white man wants to give to the less fortunate peoples because the white man is superior and therefore needs to help others. But if the white man is giving to other people what makes him superior, hasn't he leveled the field? Aren't both the white man and the African villager on the same level once the white man tells/shows the villager everything he knows? Then, after helping out one group of people, the white man is no longer superior. He has equals. Can the white man help out more than one group of less fortunate people and still claim superiority?

A situation that illustrates this is the US's aid to Iraq. The United States armed Iraqi groups to that they could defend themselves. Now, we (the United States and Iraq) are fighting the war as equals. It's not guns vs. bows and arrows or swords. It's guns vs. guns. In our attempt to help the less fortunate, we have given up our superiority over them.

My basic point is this: Once the white man helps someone, he is no longer superior, he is an equal. This prevents him from claiming superiority twice, and almost humbles him.

Thoughts?

(Megan West)

Déjà vu...?

Hello, fellow bloggers! I hope I'm not beating a dead horse by bringing the this topic up again, but here I go...

In the national government class I'm taking this semester Ms. Dickason has begun talking about media, its influence, its bias, etc. The whole time she was talking today I was constantly reminded of English class and some of our in-class and blog discussions about the media and bias, in general.

One of my teacher's points was that bias is just one interpretation of the same set of facts, and that many times bias involves taking a look at only one half of the facts. The facts may be correct, but they are incomplete. In addition, I was reminded of the necessity of ethos and reliability of sources when she mentioned that facts are only regarded as "true" when there is an identifiable source (for example, if a source asks not to be named, the information will be regarded as illegitimate, whether or not it is).

My teacher also took a moment to define the term "media," which was a very good move-- whether or not we realized it, we probably were all thinking of different things when we heard the word "media." She said that there are three types of media: printed, broadcast, and internet. She distinguished journalism in print sources of media from opinion editorials. She said that a newspaper makes a point of doing that (that's why there are two different sections-- one for "information" and the other for explicit opinion).

Another point that Ms. Dickason made was that what makes a source legitimate is the fact that the public regards it as so and holds it accountable. This reminded me of the feedback loop that we discussed regarding "Merchants of Cool"-- the media publishes/broadcasts what it knows will attract viewers-- viewers are attracted, and watch-- the media see what attracts viewers and broadcasts it again...etc. Sometimes this is factual, but, as she pointed out, who wants to watch a debate when s/he can hear commentary on the debate? Viewers/readers/listeners are easily bored by straight news, and the media is interested in selling, so it will do what it has to do to make a interesting story. (She mentioned that there is a difference between the media being inaccurate and the person that the media quotes being inaccurate.)

It is impossible to avoid slant and bias, no matter how hard a person tries. The purpose of a media source is not to be the ultimate source of knowledge, but one of many perspectives on information/data/"fact."

I know this is a lot of what we have heard before and discussed already, but I thought it was kind of cool how a lot of the thoughts that have been formulating in English have a place in the history classroom, as well.

Emily T.

America's Nightmares

Hey it's Jenn
I hope y'all remember the story Lottery.

In Debate class, we were discussing whether a course on America's dark past should be adopted in every school in the United States.
The curriculum of the course will include discussions on the nation's darkest times such as forced relocation of Natives, Japanese internment during WWII, etc.

Of course I started zoning out and realized that this topic is related to the discussions in AP ENG and the chapter America's Dreams and Nightmares

One of America's "Nightmares" came to my mind immediately when I began to think about the Lottery.

Lynching had been used in the past to torture and kill innocent people.
Lynching was not limited to Blacks in the South but used to kill people of various ethnicities in different parts of America.
Various grotesque mechanisms of torture were performed and lynching would be publicly advertised to gather crowds at the scene.
From many published historical records, these mobs considered lynching as a festive and would proudly admit that they took part in it. Very similar to the townspeople who did not feel guilty or morally wrong about stoning someone to death.

Would you agree that we need to educate young people about America's Nightmares?
What do you think about the connection between the Lottery and lynching?


(Jennifer Park)

The End of our Semantics Journey

I was browsing the net and reading things as I went along. I was fortunate enough to find the following excerpt from a TIME article.

"Semantics (defined as "the science of meanings") has been criticized principally because its theoreticians have made such sweeping claims for it as a social cureall, and because books about it are hard to read. Semanticist Chase makes his claims as sweeping as any, but his book is easy reading. "A brief grounding in semantics," he vouches, "besides making philosophy unreadable, makes unreadable most political speeches, classical economic theory, after-dinner oratory, diplomatic notes, newspaper editorials, treatises on pedagogics and education, expert financial comment, dissertations on money and credit . . . Great Thoughts from Great Thinkers in general."

The reason that this passage struck me immediately is because my feelings are identical to Stuart Chase's. From chapter one of Language in Thought and Action, I began to perceive language differently. People around me would speak, and I would find myself dissecting their sentences and scrutinizing their every word. I found it hard to converse with them without pointing out a correction or alternative for their speech. Little did they know that what they were saying was not at all expressing the point they hoped to make. Even to this day, I find myself marvelling at the speech employed by our peers and teachers. I've come to doubt almost everything and have begun thoroughly measure the value of my words before voicing them (or at least I try to!).

Are any of you experiencing this? Semantics is an inevitable, ongoing process. As long as language exists, so will semantics. Sometimes ignorance may seem an easier path to follow; do we regret our study thusfar? I surely do not, no matter how skeptical I have become. Our study of this subject has even affected my views on other courses (biology, history, etc..).

I just thought I'd include one last post on semantics to tie things together since the unit has officially ended. Then again, I doubt this will be the last passage posted on this topic - it's just too important to disregard!

(Samantha Maliha)

Class Discussion (11/18/08)

Today in class, we focused upon Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden."

Kipling's poem seems to indicate that he strongly believes that we have an obligation to help "civilize" less-advanced cultures. Despite the fact that your subjects may be "sullen" and both hate and blame you, Kipling urges us to take on the "white man's burden", or the responsibility to enlighten those below us.

We questioned whether this attitude was actually beneficial to the native peoples. Simply assuming that the "uncivilized" people need the help of the white man is often condescending and implies that their culture is inferior. However, accomplishments have been done through colonization, such as the British's abolishment of suttee, in which a widow was burned along with her husband's body.
Still, does a "burden" or responsibility to stroll into others' lives and interfere with them to "improve" them actually exist? Every time we see something in another culture that we perceive as barbaric, should we attempt to correct it? Although the definition of a "civilized culture" differs depending upon the perspective, Kipling seems to imply that we must "search our manhood" and take on this burden to both prove ourselves and help others.

However, although Kipling may have reflected what some people genuinely believed in his time, today we see this "white man's burden" as nothing more than a justification for imperialism. As the parody poem written on the next page pointed, often the native peoples are exploited, regardless of the "burden" and responsibilities.

In addition, we wondered whether our invasion of Iraq was a fulfillment of the white man's burden. After all, some people (by no means all) believed that we were entering Iraq to free the oppressed people and plant democracy. Whether the invasion was legitimate or not, we wondered if the invasion was almost a rebirth of the white man's burden.

And of course, Sam's disclaimer applies here.

(Eric Wei)

Class Discussion (11/17/08)

This post will serve as a summary for today's class discussion during Mr. Lazarow's absence. Disclaimer: None of the following information necessarily represents my personal feelings on the topic.

What is America? Our nation was founded on democratic (yet also religious) principles in 1776. Yet has the same thing that once brought us together possibly tearing us apart? We all agreed that arguing the existence of God is very different from arguing the positives/negatives of religious doctrine. Some of us felt it to be self-serving; another portion of us felt it to be a useful tool of guidance. How could something so sacred cause such bloddy massacres (the Crusades, the Wars of Religion during the 1500s and 1600s, etc..)? Yet on the other hand, religion has also instilled certain morals within its followers.

This led to yet another topic of discussion. A non-believer is capable of maintaining morals. Just the same, a believer may lack the morality demanded by society. But by this point of the discussion, we began to question the definitions of a believer/religious person. What made someone religious? We found this hard to specify.

Some mentioned that their complaints against religion stem from those who practice the religion rather than the religion itself. In other words, different faiths may exist in harmony as long as one person does not impose their principles on another. When such imposing commences, different groups are separated further. How can something meant to bring us together tear us apart? One student mentioned a website (www.chick.com) that seemed to be doing just that: tearing different groups at the seams due to discrimination (i.e. against homosexuals, etc..).

This is about as well as my memory will serve me from today's discussion. Once again, I will state that this post is merely to inform Mr. Lazarow of our discussion (as he asked us to do) and does not represent my own beliefs in any way, shape, or form.

(Samantha Maliha)

Religious Propaganda

So, I was just looking at the website Sam mentioned in class today (www.chick.com), and I found this:
this. (The portion I'm referencing is in about the middle of the comic, when they start talking about Communism).

I find it extremely odd, to say the least, that this organization is actively linking itself to Chinese Communism. They even go so far as to suggest that Mao stole his propaganda techniques from fundamentalist Christians!

This makes me wonder: do the people who run this organization have any idea what they are saying? Have they never learned about The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? Perhaps these statements are borne out of genuine ignorance, but, unless they are, it seems to me that they are supportinng manipulation and brainwashing to further their own agenda (namely, converting others to their religion).

(Please understand: I don't have a problem with religion in general. I just oppose people who try to force their beliefs on others, and it seems to be the case here.)

Thoughts?

-Paige Walker-

Dear Mr. President-Elect...

In an article entitled "The Food Issue - Farmer in Chief", published on October 9, 2008, Michael Pollan addresses a letter of concern to "the future President of America". We have, since then, elected our new President, yet the letter has not lost its signifigance. The whole article includes valuable information. One passage, however, directly relates to our study of language.

In a part of the article, Pollan begins to suggest several steps the government may take in order to nurture to make local foods affordable for consumers. The following passage is directly taken from the article:

"Create a Federal Definition of 'Food.' It makes no sense for the government food-assistance dollars, intended to improve the nutritional health of at-risk Americans, to support the consumption of products we know to be unhealthful. Yes, some people will object that for the government to specify what food stamps can and cannot buy smacks of paternalism. Yet we already prohibit the purchase of tobacco and alcohol with food stamps. So why not prohibit something like soda, which is arguably less nutritious than red wine? Because it is, nominally, a food, albeit a 'junk food' -- and instead make clear that such products are not in fact food of any kind. Defining what constitutes real food worthy of federal support will no doubt be controversial (you'll recall President Reagan's ketchup imbroglio), but defining food upward may be more politcally palatable than defining it down, as Reagan sought to do. One approach would be to rule that, in order to be regarded as a food by the government, an edible substance must contain a certain minimum ratio of micronutrients per calorie of energy. At a stroke, such a definiton would improve the quality of school lunch and discourage sales of unhealthful products, since typically only "food" is exempt from local sales tax." (Pollan 11)

Pollan acknlowedges that difficulty will be met when trying to agree upon a single definition for the word "food". He also makes sure to include a qualifier when mentioning his own definitions of the word (i.e. 'arguably').

Once again, informative definitons have imposed reform. They seem to be overtaking politics. From fundamentals to food, we're on our way to rewriting the Oxford Dictionary!

(Samantha Maliha)

Polygraphs and Language

A polygraph machine, or a lie detector, is the instrument used to sense irregular body activities during a lie detection test.

I am quite unsure how this topic came to mind, yet somehow, it made its way into my thoughts. Does certain language affect the result of a polygraph test? Are certain linguistic tools used in order to acquire desired answers that are not necessarily true? We know that certain words have a wide range of connotations. This could possibly affect one's emotions and, in turn, cause odd physical activity. The fact of the matter is that even the innocent are capable of failing the test. Is it a farce? If so, it should be extinguished as soon as possible.

There are three types of questions asked throughout the duration of the polygraph test:
1.) Irrelevant

• These questions have obvious answers. [ How old are you? ]

2.) Relevant

• These questions portray what kind of information is wanted. [ Did you steal the car? ]

3.) Control

• These questions produce reactions that are then compared to your reactions from the relevant questions. They usually apply to all subjects. [ Have you ever gone to school? ]

Those who take the test are advised to give short answeres. A mere yes or no will suffice. Explained answers, as we well know from Hayakawa, will be dissected and analyzed. In this case, language is a tool of separation rather than a tool of "togetherness". Where is the cooperation in a polygraph test? If society depended upon "yes" or "no" answers, how could we learn to live mutually?

Isn't language supposed to provide a way to progress and a way to acquire a better understanding of the world's phenomena? Just a curious thought..

(Samantha Maliha)

Morality

Although many of us consider the stoning morally wrong, from the villagers' viewpoint it was morally acceptable. After all, they were merely sacrificing the needs of the individual for the common good of all. Don't we do that many times ourselves? After all, wasn't that the idea of republicanism from the American Revolution? (Citizens make necessary sacrifices of personal rights in the formation of a government for the good of society.) We agree that we have to lock up criminals for the good of society and sacrifice their freedom (that's morally acceptable), but we shudder at the thought of stoning others. But from the villagers' viewpoint, it was morally correct to participate in the ritual (Tessie is even told to be a "good sport" at one point and continue on with the tradition).

That brings up the question: Is there any intuitive sense of right and wrong? Are any morals universal, or are they all subject to conventions of society? As a recent Newsweek article put it: Is morality natural?
We did discuss in class that society often decides where to draw the line on our ego/id/superego iceberg, but surely we have some say?

Would you drive your boat faster to save the lives of six people if  one person would fall off in the process and drown?

Would you suffocate a bawling baby to stop soldiers from finding you and killing you, the baby, and anyone else hiding with you?

Interesting enough, studies have shown that people reply with a strong yes to the first, and a very tentative, hesitant yes to the second. If you time to spare, you can go onto the Moral Sense Test from Harvard (http://wjh1.wjh.harvard.edu/~moral/nm1/test/test.html) and see how your morals compare to those of others.

Or perhaps morals are all personal and are embedded into our intensional maps: morally, we cannot judge anyone, not even Jackson's stone-crazy villagers.

(Eric Wei)

Metaphorically Speaking...

As we were discussing "The Lottery" today in class, I started formulating some ideas of my own in regards to its deeper meaning...

What if "The Lottery" is a metaphor for our society? No, we don't stone people and we aren't willing to sacrifice our friends for this fall's crop... or are we??? The story begins with a description of a perfectly wonderful summer day-- the sky is clear and sunny, it's warm out, the flowers are blooming, the grass is green, etc. Yeah, it looks great... but once we reach the end of the story we discover that there is something terribly wrong in this society, and they don't even realize it, and the only person who does realize that something is wrong (Mrs. Hutchinson) is not in a position to assert her opinion and expect others to listen.

Now, I realize that it might be a little bit difficult to see the comparisons I am about to make, but please bear with me. Look at our society, think about the American Dream. Sounds great, doesn't it? What sacrifices do we make to reach our goal of the "American Dream?" If we want success, if we want wealth, money doesn't grow on trees, does it? Look at our economic crisis, look at the debt... Americans have dug themselves a deep hole that will be difficult to get out of-- all for what? The "American way of life"-- symbols of wealth: big houses, nice cars, etc. (after all, they are only symbols of wealth if we are indebting ourselves to get them). We didn't realize that something was wrong until it was too late to be undone... does that sound like anyone? (i.e. Mrs. Hutchinson?)

But, the sacrifice of indebtedness is little compared to the larger sacrifice that we make as a society but rarely notice. In our quest for success, a good job, etc., how much time do we spend with our parents? Our friends? Our community as a whole? Sometimes we don't even realize how much difficulty we have making time for people. After all, what would our success be worth if we couldn't share it? I know we've all heard variations of that before, but, really, think about it. Are we sacrificing our relationships in order to achieve success, like the town sacrificed one person each year in hopes of a successful crop? Society is individualized for the most part-- we work most of the day, most of the week, most of the year, we become successful, and with whatever time is leftover maybe we'll spend time with friends or family. Are our priorities mixed up?

As I mentioned above, the American Dream looks great, doesn't it? The town in "The Lottery" looked great, too. There was a real problem, though, in the town. They sacrificed a friend, a coworker, someone that they knew and loved, in hopes of a successful crop. Are we, too, sacrificing our relationships in hopes of success?

I realize that I may be sounding a bit too extreme-- I know we don't all live under rocks and we aren't all anti-social...but I'm just trying to make a point.

Emily Thompson

Apathy...

I know this post isn't much for conversation, but as I was scrolling through Windows Media before settling in to do vocab, I came across the song by Relient K called "Apathetic Way to Be." So, just for fun, I thought I'd post some of the lyrics in light of the fact that "apathy" is one of our vocab words this week...

"Yeah, I'm not angry
And no, I'm not upset
It's taken me awhile
But this is what I've learned
Emotional attachment is really not a threat
When I'm simply not concerned

"The things that I take on
I soon shrug off
'cause I know no one
Will ever be content
With the way things are
Or with what they've got
So I've given up and now I'm just indifferent

"You all laugh at me
Like I'm not happy
With anything, any time, anywhere
And the half of me's all about apathy
And the other half just doesn't care

"Yeah, bein' apathetic's a pathetic way to be
(I don't care)
What matters to you does not matter to me
('cause I don't care)

"I'm well aware that everything
Is a far cry from all right
I'm well aware that all of us
Can at times, be too uptight
And possibly, the remedy
Is a dose of apathy
You point your finger at you
I'll point mine right back at me"

These are just selected verses, but it's a pretty cool song...

Emily T.

The Many Wonders of Disney World

This is slightly off-topic but I spent the break in Disney World and I couldn't help but notice that coercion and general manipulation was more widespread than almost any other place I'd ever seen. Just a few linguistic gems.

1) Everyone who works at Disney is referred to as "Cast Members", no matter their individual position. Even the maid's closet is labeled with a "Cast member's Only" sign. I found this amazing though slightly ridiculous. Are we supposed to forget that out waiter is in fact only a waiter? Is referring to him as a "cast member" supposed to make us believe that he is not a waiter but merely plays one? When does each scene end? I was simply befuddled at the term and wondered if anyone had a better explination.

2) There are buses to and from each park to the individual Disney hotels. Upon reaching each hotel the bus driver plays a recorded message that in addition to wishing everyone a magical day, says "welcome home." Again, do the guests staying in these hotels honestly feel that they are going home, rather than a hotel room? They repeat this idea of the hotel room as your home throughout Disney. In the park there are signs biding you to check out the Disney channel when you get back home, as well as a banner above check in that says welcome home. I guess I'm just wondering if an environment can be made intoxicating enough that people will believe ridiculous propoganda when it's thrown at them. Admittedly, there is certainly a charm about Disney, but does this, combined with the constant overstimulization make you more willing to accept their messages?

3) This was a small thing that began to irk me as time went on. Every "cast member" in Disney would wish you a "Disney day" upon you're departure. What does that mean?! A day where you spend $6 on a bottle of water because of price fixing? A day where you stand in lines for extended periods for a 3o second ride?

I realize I'm begining to sound like I hate Disney World, which is not true. I'm just in awe of their language usage. It seems to me that they can get away with saying whatever they want because of their reputation. Thoughts?
(Molly Dunbar)

The Effect of Songs

Eric's post just reminded me of something I've been meaning to bring up in the blog. I know this might be a bit late, so I apologize.
In my semantics book 'The Way We Think Now' by Geoffrey Nunberg, one of the topics brought up was how some songs stick around while others die out, specifically in country music. Nunberg theorizes that the life of a song depends on the wordplay contained in its lyrics. People like the metaphors, the puns, the images created by the words.
My question: Does this still apply today? What about other types of music? Do a lot of songs survive because of the meaning of their lyrics or the way they are written?

Mary Quien

Communication

As Taylor wrote about in his previous post from last month, language does have its limitations. That led me to this train of thought: Is language truly the most powerful and most effective method of communication? I'm sure we agree that language is the most versatile, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the most powerful...

To put this in perspective: Imagine that a group of aliens comes down and visits Earth. We want to explain Earth's culture and history to them, but they do not understand us. Do we:

1) hand them pages and pages of meaningless written symbols for them to decipher or try to talk in gibberish noises to them (the use of "language")

2) show them our masterpieces of art

3) play them music

4) show them our mathematical achievements and equations

In this case, art, music, and math might actually serve as better methods of communication than language would. Isn't a picture worth a thousand words? And sometimes music can express our feelings better than words ever can. Perhaps math is even more universal than language, given a few basic assumptions, such as 1 + 1 = 2.

Art History class and Newsweek magazine have provided me with two interesting quotes, with the first elevating art over language and the second describing music's advantages over other medium.

From Ernest Boyer, President of the Carnegie Foundation: 

"But even with the beauty and power of the written and spoken word, our miraculous use of language was was incomplete. For the most intimate, most profoundly moving universal experiences, we needed a more subtle, a more sensitive set of symbols than the written and spoken word. And this richer language we call the arts. And so it is that men and women have used...the visual arts to transmit most effectively the heritage of a people, and to express most profoundly their  deepest human joys and sorrows and intuitions, too."

From Daniel Levitin, the author of "The World in Six Songs"

"What music is better able to do than language is to represent the complexity of human emotional states."

So, what is the most effective method of communication, especially for transmitting human emotions and feelings? Words do have their limits, and yet society has been founded upon the literary pooling of knowledge.

Interestingly enough, the Voyager spacecraft carries a golden disk with it that is supposed to enlighten aliens upon Earth's culture. It includes art, music, math, and language. 

Here's a Wikipedia link about it: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

Comments? (We'd better be ready when those aliens come...)

(Eric Wei)

Rushkoff or Hayakawa? Take your pick!

Douglas Rushkoff's Coercion was not based on the laws of semantics. Rather, Hayakawa's ideas were vaguely referenced in terms of the media and pop culture.

Rushkoff alluded to presymbolic and ritualistic utterances, directive language, cooperation in a society achieved by language, the map and territory analogy, intensional/extensional worlds, and levels of abstraction.

"...the answers were already built-in, but they gave you the illusion of interactivity. Like the responsive readings in a church service, they made you feel like you were actively participating in a deductive process..." (Rushkoff 14).
[Presymbolic/Ritualistic]

"As Miller put it, 'Do not ask any question that will lead to a yes or no answer, like 'Would you like to take a test drive?' Just ask him, 'Which one would you like to take for a drive?' His Language presupposes your actions" (Rushkoff 42).
[Directive]

"The CIA manual suggests appearing genuinely concerned about the subject's feelings, developing a mutual set of goals, or defining a common enemy as a means to developing the illusion of friendship. The opening is about listening, assessing, acknowledging, and befriending" (Rushkoff 34).
"The objective of this stage is to secure 'ongoing cooperation' by convincing the subject that he has not been duped" (Rushkoff 39).
[Cooperation in Society]

"In the same way that the CIA interrogator assesses his subject's 'psychologic-emotional and geographic-cultural typographies,' the car dealer fathers information during the 'preappraoch' in a process called 'blueprinting'" (Rushkoff 41).
[Map Analogy, Intentional/Extensional Worlds]

"The less specific the details, the more iconic and universal the reference" (Rushkoff 112).
[Abstraction]

These quotes present ideas that were introduced to us this summer by S.I. Hayakawa and Alan R. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action. As is evident, Rushkoff related these concepts to his own field of study, though less directly.

What struck me as controversial, however, was Rushkoff's claim that the icon, or symbol, is the thing symbolized.

"The product is its icon, inseparably and without exception" (Rushkoff 186).

Does this not contradict one of the main principals we learned from Hayakawa's lessons? How can two well-respected researchers publish view points on the opposite ends of the spectrum?

I'd like to hear how Rushkoff's points relate to the books each of you read. :)

(Samantha Maliha)

Framing

In my book, Thinking Points: A Progressive's Handbooks, George Lakoff came up with an interesting connection between cognitive psychology and politics: the use of "framing" in politics to manipulate feeling and emotions.

"Frames" are the "mental structures that allow human beings to understand reality" (Lakoff 25). Essentially, they are our subconscious assumptions and perceptions of reality, and function in the same way as Hayakawa's intensional map. Frames lock us into viewing something a particular way and restrict us: to step out of a mental frame is similar to "thinking outside of the box", a difficult task.

Lakoff states that there are basically two types of frames: surface frames and deep frames. Surface frames are easily manipulated by language and refer to the temporary feelings and images that a word evokes, so they are similar to intensional connotations. Lakoff gives an example of surface frames with the word "accuse". The word "accuse" immediately causes a surface "accusation" frame to come up and influence our view: We begin to look for an accuser, and accused, and an offense. We begin to look for someone to blame or indict. Hayakawa would say that the judgments implanted in words are what cause surface frames to spring up.

The other type of frame is a deep frame, which refers to our moral worldview and political philosophy. Liberals and conservatives have inherently different deep frames. Although surface frames can be activated by using loaded (snarl/purr) words, deep frames can only be indirectly reached through the use of surface frames.

According to Lakoff, an understanding of political framing shows why the "war on terror" is impossible to win. The surface frame associated with the word "war" influences us to look for an army, a fight, an enemy to conquer and kill, and the surrender of the enemy. Already, we're viewing the world through a particular lens or frame. When "terror" is added onto "war," the opposing army becomes "terror." But because "terror" is not a tangible enemy but only a state of mind, it cannot be conquered on the battlefield. However, the deep frames aroused by the "war on terror" push us to continue the fight and "win," because losing a war is unacceptable. Because conservatives have framed the occupation in Iraq as the "war on terror", we have an instinctive desire to "win the war" and "fight the good fight." This whole "war" frame of mind then leads to criticisms like "cut and run", because in "war" you should stay and fight.

Lakoff asks what would have happened if we had framed the terrorist acts not as a "war on terror" but as an international police problem: We would go to the International Criminal Court to indict bin Laden, and then use diplomacy to create an international coalition to hunt bin Laden down and try him for crimes against humanity. This approach is completely different from the "war" frame.

Anyway, as much fun as frames are, I felt that there was a question that Lakoff never explicitly answered in the book: How do we reframe issues? To give you an example that we all know, conservatives have reframed "global warming" as "climate change." But how did they do it? How do you step outside of the frame and then change the perspective? It wasn't as simple as repeating "climate change" over and over again...or was it?

I apologize for the lengthy post, but it's helping to clarify my thoughts for my book review...

Any comments?
(Eric Wei)

Scale of truth

(Continuing from previous discussions) I don't want to say we are all Gods in our own little ways because of the simple fact that we cannot perform any miracles...or can we?

If you think I created five million bowls of soup from one drop of chicken noodle, and I say so, did it just become a fact? Can that be called an absolute statement? I mean, if you believe it and I believe it, and if I make everyone else believe it, wouldn't that become a truth? After all, based on what we have talked about so far, everyone has different truths. So why can't we make them all believe the same thing?

Is making something absolute solely dependent on common belief of all?

Also, is it not possible for actions to be absolute? If I touch something, and say "I
touched it" how can that not be an absolute? If someone says I didn't, why would we bother with the truth of a lier? I guess what I'm trying to say is does every truth worth the same and do we have to take all the truths into account when we are determining the absolute.

Sorry if you don't understand what I'm talking about.
(Jennifer Park)

The Problem of "Deep Reality"

In my book Quantum Mechanics by Robert Wilson, he analyzes an arguement that physicists postualize, which is a deeper exploration of the "Is of Identity" issue. The first proposes that language cannot assume that we know what things metaphysically "are" or "are not", essentially the essensce of "staplerness" as we have discussed in class. Language can only describe what we phenomenologically experience, also know as the extensional experience. There is no "is" or "deep reality", and the scientific meathod can never experimentally locate or demonstrate this "deep reality". the explains all other actualities. 

The opposition states that physics can make statements about actuality, but Wilson qualifies to limit "actuality" to 'that which humans or their instruments are able to detect, decode, and transmit. Regardless of the stance, it is agreed that "deep reality" is intangible and lies in the realm of speculation and philosophy, something that we cannot directly experience but only "make noises about" i.e. we cannot make meaningful(testable) statements. That which lies outside the realm of extensional experience also lies outside the realm of human competence. 

They make arguments that no one can demonstrate that something has a temperature or does not, something looks red or smells purple, there is a God, there is no God. Again, we can only "make noises" and the limit of language is reached when there is an impossibility to present phenomenological or non-verbal data.

Thoughts?

(Steve Szumski)

The Perspective of Time

I must admit that when I saw a chapter entitled "The Language of Computers", I was not at all excited to read it (computers are not my forte, nor do they interest me). But, one rather important piece of information that I forgot was that this book, Language in America, edited by Neil Postman and two other semanticists, was published in 1969. The most interesting thing that I realized while reading this chapter was the perspective that I have, reading this book nearly forty years after it was written. It amazes me how (almost) naïve the author is in relation to what, then, was relatively new technology. Little did he know the extent of the impact that computers would make on our generation, and generations to come, for that matter. He marvelled at things that, today, would seem so simple (i.e., the ability of a computer to calculate the date for Easter for the next two thousand years). We are a generation so dependent on computers for information and entertainment, and we can get practically whatever we want whenever we want it. Here are a few quotes/questions from "The Language of Computers" chapter that I found particularly thought-provoking (I encourage you, as you read these quotes, to keep in mind that these were written forty years ago, and then try to apply them to today):

"Users of such equipment [computers] will probably begin to desire simultaneity in other areas of life and culture. Instantaneity. All-at-once-ness. The most-noticed quality of a computer is its blinding speed-- or, better, instancy." (Lias, 158)

"Will a critical point ever be reached when people will seek refuge from information rather than welcoming all media into their bedrooms?" (Lias, 171)

"Does the fact that people are against computers when they have never used them, neutral when near them, and transfixed when operating them indicate a widespread human hypnosis under which gadgetry can alter beliefs more certainly than books, churches, lectures, schools, and blood relatives?" (Lias, 172)

I think that, for most of us, the implications of these statements/questions are clear. The author of this chapter really prophesied what is occurring right now without even knowing the full extent of the power that a computer would ultimately end up having. I hope these are thought-provoking. I'm curious to hear what you all have to say in response.

Emily T.

(By the way, the fact that I am relaying this information and communicating with all of you on such a non-personal level serves to support some of Lias' points.)

(I will also add that, although I find the extent of our dependency on technology alarming, there is no possible way to ban computers. Technology is a part of our culture, and we must live with it; however, knowledge of its power is certainly helpful-- that is why study semantics, is it not?)

Thanks, Rushkoff.

As I progressed through the reading of Douglas Rushkoff's, Coercion, a specific excerpt struck me due to its great relevance to our current in-class discussion concerning "The Star-Spangled Banner".

"After dutifully singing the National Anthem (and forcing Peter to stand and put his hand on his heart), Joseph replaces the headphones over his ears and watches sadly out of the corner of one eye as his grandson reflexively responds to each marketing appeal made during the game" (Rushkoff 102).

The chapter from which this passage was extracted is titled "Spactacle," and rightfully so. The author narrates how the social cohesion of big sporting events, and any large-scale events for that matter, inspire a sense of unity within the crowd because of the coercive atmospheric and hand-in-hand propaganda techniques executed by the media.

Young 11-year-old Peter felt more in unison with the crowd when advertisers offered cash prizes to the spectators, rather than when his nation's anthem was sung. At these events, any moments of high excitement and emotional potential are attacked by corporations in need of more business. When the defense "sacks" the opposing team, audience members are asked to wave around signs with the "Outback Steakhouse" logo facing them directly, whetting their appetite for a lean, sirloin steak. Thus, great football team tactics become associated with a particular restaurant, and, yet again, the media has won.

Is this the reason, then, that some are apathetic towards the national anthem (just as Pete was)? Instead of singing our unifying anthem at times of victory, we are exposed to latent propaganda.

Just a thought; now, what are yours?

(Sam Maliha)
P.S. I know some of you dislike me for starting the "name-in-parantheses" trend, haha. I apologize! :)

Readiness to assimilate?

As I was reading a section of my independent semantics book that seemed closely related to out ongoing discussion of a national language, I had some questions that I thought I would just put out there.
In the history of American immigration some groups have been more inclined to quickly learn American customs and assimilate to American society. This has been most clearly seen with the readiness that these groups learn or attempt to learn English. For example, virtually all Dutch and Swedish immigrants that arrived in the United States during the 19C learned English within two generations. Often even those straight off the boat would try to learn English quickly after their arrival. During the rush of immigration from Germany during the same time period however, the percentage of those who learned English within the first three generations was considerably lower and many German immigrants resisted governmental attempts to accelerate the process. Many Germans seemed either unable or unwilling to assimilate to American culture. Additionally, Native Americans forced into boarding schools and assimilation programs during the 1870's in particular strongly resisted learning English. So my first question is this, why is it that some groups seem more willing to learn English and give up (as many of the 2nd/3rd generation immigrants did) the language of their ancestors? Are groups more willing to assimilate if they are not encouraged or, in the case of the Native Americans, forced to do so? Also, is assimilation the primary goal? When we say that we want to spread unity and patriotism, are we saying we want to do so by eliminating, or at least lessening the importance of the native cultures of these immigrants?
Sorry that this post was slightly jumbled. (Molly Dunbar)

The Virtues of Cheese

Should symbols represent an ideal or a reality?

For example, Joe Plumber would think of himself as:
I am Irish/Italian/German/Indonesian/Phillies Fan/whatever.
I am American.

Or, if we are even more optimistic:
I am [insert ethnicity/classification from above]-American.
I am American.


Most people identify themselves by their ethnicity/smaller group first and as Americans second. Some even say that they are too ashamed to consider themselves Americans. Technically speaking, if you were born in the US or naturalized, you are American. You learn to say the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the anthem (or at least take off your hat and be quiet while it is playing) and all that fun stuff. Is this a sign of respect, tradition/habit, or, as Hayakawa would say, a reaffirmation of social cohesion? I'm not sure that the latter is even occurring.(Full Disclosure: I do not always say the Pledge and I would butcher the anthem with my horrible singing skills if I were forced to do so. And no, I am not an anarchist, terrorist etc just because I do not always participate in said activities.)

The original question posed by Mr. Lazarow was "Is it wrong to translate a national anthem into another language?" We have (almost) all agreed that the anthem reaffirms (or at least attempts to reaffirm) social cohesion/national unity. Yet, we have been arguing about the content/the actual symbols. I realize that Hayakawa is not the be all end all of semantic knowledge, but he clearly states that social cohesion is achieved through "accustomed sets of noises which convey no information, but to which feelings (in this case, group feelings) are attached." (Hayakawa 61)
Are all those people arguing about the "Under God" in the Pledge, the violent themes of the anthem, and the language of the anthem confusing the symbol with the thing symbolized/abstract purpose? Could we sing about the virtues of the American cheese and still have it relate to national unity (disregarding the fact that we would immediately lose the little international respect we have left)? Or are we just arguing over content because it is more of a tradition and less of an exercise in supposed national unity?

E Pluribus Unum,
Grace Yuan

Back to the national anthem?

Considering the blog looks pretty dead right now, maybe it's a good idea to talk about the reading we had to do. So, what does everyone think? Is it a good idea to change the National Anthem? If so, to what? America the Beautiful? Also, as a secondary thought, what did everyone think of that test?

(Kevin Trainer)

Presidental Debate

I hope I'm not kicking a dead horse by bringing up some points about tonight's debate. Though we have analyzed the candidate's language usage extensively I can't help but point out a few things.

One thing that particularly bothered me was the way the word facts was thrown around by both candidates. Especially because, the things they were saying certainly could not be "Truths"(if they even exist) because they were contradicted minutes later by another so-called fact. Just as Hayakawa discussed, statistics typically contain no truth and the same statistics can often be applied to opposing arguments. McCain's accusation "You (Obama) are not giving the American people the truth," is a phrase that needs a qualifier and the definition of this so-called truth. It may seem less eloquent to change it in this way but without the alterations this utterance is in my view, incorrect.

I understand that these candidates cannot lock themselves down with too many qualifiers but recently I have become frustrated with the complete lack of substance. Why are we satisfied with 20 minutes of them going back and forth saying "Well, I just want to discuss the issues", instead of actually discussing them. I suppose my question is, will it ever change? Will their speeches ever contain more than rhetorical fluff and hate mongering? And is there anyway that we can help this process progress faster?

(Molly Dunbar)

The Shortcomings of Language

A lot of what we have discussed so far in this class is the immense power that words and language have on everything around us. From the influence of bias and connotations, to the control of authors over their characters, vernacular seems to hold a great deal of importance. But what about when language is inadequate?


It is impossible to quantize human emotion. Words try to get the job done, they they just fall short. For instance, when someone says "I love you", you cannot truly comprehend the extent of the reverence they have towards you. Many of our relationships, on all sorts of levels, fail due to the simple fact that words cannot explain perception. At least with "facts" we have tangible (to an extent) evidence of what one is saying.

Thoughts?

(Taylor)

Adding fuel to the English Language fire

Some of you might have heard something about this debate last year:

Wyclef Jean, hip-hop star Pitbull, and Carlos Ponce and Olga Tanon from Puerto Rico were among a group of performers who released a Spanish-language translation of "The Star-Spangled Banner."

You can imagine the wide range of public responses generated. Investigate the matter yourself, but here's a starting point, from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369145

That article includes a literal translation from the Spanish BACK into English, which you might find interesting.

The essential question: Is it wrong to translate a national anthem into another language?

LAZ

A Practice Exercise in Semantic Analysis

Analyze the following statements, based upon your understanding of semantics. Use your knowledge of Hayakawa, E-Prime, common propaganda techniques, etc. You may post your analyses here--but be prepared to discuss them in class as well. This is a preparatory exercise for the Semantics Unit final test.

1. "Environmental crimes are not like organized crimes or drugs. There you have bad people doing bad things. With environmental crimes, you have decent people doing bad things."

2. “The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes—danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive.” (Adolf Hitler)

3. MOSCOW—The former Soviet Union’s chief cartographer acknowledge Friday that for the last 50 year the Soviet Union had deliberately falsified virtually all public maps of the country, misplacing rivers and streets, distorting boundaries and omitting geographical features, on orders of the secret police. . .The apparent purpose is to thwart military and intelligence operations.

4. Cats are creatures that meow. Tabby, Cinders and Fluff are cats. Therefore, Tabby, Cinders and Fluff meow.

5. “I have a great new recipe for trail mix—two scoops of Reese’s Pieces to one scoop of Peanut M&Ms. The kids love it. You know it’s nutritional because it’s trail mix.” (comedian Roseanne Barr)

A National Language

Should English be the national language of the United States?  This is a complex and far-reaching issue that I am positive Congress will confront again in the near future.  I'm sure that we all realize that the US has traditionally been a diverse nation, comprising individuals of different, ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds.  It is the great cultural 'melting pot' as I am sure we have all heard.  As such, the US has always had a diverse array of languages being spoken.   

In recent years several attempts have been made within Congress to make English the official language of the United States federal government.  Many Congressmen have argued that it will promote 'unity in diversity,' it will help bring together Americans across linguistic lines.  It has also been said that it would prevent discrimination and repression against minority language speakers and also promote cooperation among individuals of different backgrounds across the country.  These are several ideals which I, and  I'm sure many of you, associate with Hayakawa's  work.  Despite that, it still came as a bit of a surprise to me to find that Hayakawa himself was the first to propose an "English Language Amendment" to the Constitution which would declare English our nation's official language.  The amendment was defeated when he attempted to implement it, and has been rejected time and time again since then.  Similar measures have had success on the state level with over half of the states having declared English as their official language.

I  agree with many of the arguments supporting this measure, as for example there are on a local level people who cannot speak English and they often encounter a great deal of difficulty in their day-to-day life.  Anyone who lives in this country and cannot speak English will have difficulty getting a job, getting an education, or even doing something as trivial as asking someone in the street for directions.  It is a clear detriment for them to be unable to communicate with such a large portion of our populace.  I think that the government should indeed support education programs which assist immigrants and other individuals learn to understand, speak, and read English.

On the other hand, at this time I feel that a piece of legislation declaring English our national language would be discriminatory in and of itself.  All proceedings involving the government would need to be carried out in English.  It would be a major  step against the principles of equality and universal acceptance around which our country is founded.  Speakers of minority languages would not be able to participate in our government, nor would they be able to participate in legal processes.  All of these proceedings would need to be in English.  Is it fair that a new resident of this country who cannot speak English yet should not be able to vote, not be able file an income tax return, or even be able to respond to charges brought against them?  What happens when an individual who cannot speak English is brought into a courtroom where it is the only language accepted, how could they defend themselves?  It seems ridiculous that our government would consider enacting legislation that is so potentially harmful to so many of it citizens.

Some may argue that making English our official language would give them a greater incentive to learn the language.  That if we accommodate other languages they would have no reason to learn English.  That simply seems ridiculous to me, of course they will try to learn English.  They are at such a disadvantage every day if they don't, why wouldn't they?  The only reason I can think of is that they do not have the time or the means by which to educate themselves.  That is why I believe the government should provide them with a means by which to learn English and possibly a different incentive.  However, making English the only language accepted by our government would be such a drastic move it would do more harm than good to America's minority groups.  Making English our national language needlessly limits the liberty of all those who cannot speak it.  Agree?  Disagree?

(Connor Tweardy)