Reflection on Politics and the English Language by George Orwell, 2/4/2017

George Orwell's piece on English language and politics is more relevant in today's America than ever. Following an extremely divisive presidential election, we now get to witness the ridiculous consequences of the nation's decision. The president, along with his cabinet, is the epidemic of not only human decency, but also of English language. The ways they butcher prose to fit their agendas would most definitely give Orwell a heart attack or two. Dying metaphors, verbal false limbs, meaningless words - you name it, POTUS has it all. As I'm still trying to brace myself for the next four years of logical fallacies and idiotic behaviors, Orwell's take on political writing served as a reminder that bad political prose is not an issue of one individual, but rather that of a system. In American politics, officials are encouraged to bend words and use cliches and exploit denotations, all for the sake of securing their power and influence. Lying to the public, engulfing in the use of meaningless jargon, and hiding one's ignorance with pretentious diction is any politician's starter kit. If we want to change present conditions in the presidential office, we should not be aiming  at one cockroach -- instead, we need to burn the entire nest. 

Reflection on the Writing Workshop, 01/13/2017

"It's going to be something different" - said Ms. Moccia as she stepped away from the center of the room to welcome a stranger onto the teacher's "pedestal of attention". An ordinary looking man, perhaps in his late fifties, greeted the class and briefly explained the reason he's here - a writing competition. "Well, this is going to be boring" - I thought, as I was sitting in the first row, exhausted and bored, having only one wish in my head, to go home and sleep. Still, some tiny bit of curiosity remained in my heart as I waited for the stranger to show what else he has to offer. And oh, how wrong I was about what came next.

When the man spoke, I knew that he has said this speech numerous times before. Yet it sounded so sincere and raw. He spoke about writing and feelings, about fighting your inner demons and turning the mess this fight leaves behind into something beautiful. He read us a poem that he wrote when he was in a very dark place, and every word of that poem was filled with fear, anger, sadness. I'm not a big fan of poetry, but as he read on I felt his pain and I felt bad for him. An ordinary looking man has been to places that no person should have to go to in their life, yet most of us eventually do hit that rock bottom where only darkness and despair surround us.

When he finished, the man asked us questions. The questions made me very sad. As I responded to them, with sincerity that only shows when one knows their words will not be seen by another person's eyes, I realized the real reason why I'm so tired. I realized that my lack of energy is not simply a byproduct of a problematic education system, but instead a result of me, just like the man in that poem, wondering in a dark, dark place.

Then the man told us to write. And I wrote. Although I didn't write much, my pen flowed freely across the paper as I laid out my worries. I wrote about my mother. I wrote something private, yet I believe that most people have something similarly private to say about their parents. Surprisingly, it made me feel better. By writing my thoughts on paper, the reasons for my presence in the dark place became so much clearer. Not that I have not recognized them before, but everything laid itself out in a more orderly fashion. I am yet to deal with these issues, but at least I can look back at the paper and over time kill them off one by one.

Then the man asked us to read what we wrote. I really wanted a book for myself because I can't afford to buy them and have to pick up books at the library. I read, and others read, even those who planned not to share their worlds when he asked for volunteers. It made me feel a bit better about my problems because I realized I'm sitting in a room full of people with their own concerns, concerns that are so different but also painfully similar to my own. I'm not alone who's fighting a battle.
The man flipped my day around. It's magical, really, how something you're not slightly excited for can surprise you in the best ways possible. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to be there and witness the power of writing. It's that openness and honesty of writing that helps you understand who you are. 

Facing the Consequences of Using the N-word, 01/02/2017

The N-word is the most controversial word that exists in present day America. In the slavery and consecutive racial segregation periods, saying "nigger" was normal. Despite its degrading meaning, it was openly used by both races. But as American society evolved, whether white people can use the word, and if they can, then when and how, became a topic of major discussion. 

Isaac Bailey, a journalist in South Carolina and a primary columnist for The Sun News, argues that a white person who uses the n-word, in any context, is more likely to be harmed by it than his intended target. And for that reason, before using the word, white people should ask themselves whether they are ready to suffer whatever consequences might come - a loss of a job, reputation, or relationships - to use the word as freely as some black people do. 

I personally have found myself in a situation where hearing a white person next to me using the n-word made me cringe. I dislike the word in general - and roll my eyes anytime I hear it in conversation or song - but I do recognize that this word belongs to the black community and they can use it as they want. However, the white community should refrain from using the word. When coming out of white person's mouth, the word is hurtful and demeaning, regardless of original intentions. When a black person uses it, it's empowering - they honor what their ancestors went through and celebrate the hard-earned liberty. For the reason of it conveying different meanings depending on the color of the person who uses it, the n-word is the one word that cannot be appropriated, it cannot be shared and cannot be used freely by both races. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/02/opinions/n-word-double-standard-debate-bailey/

Reflection on The Male Myth, 12/17/2016

As a woman living in this contemporary world, I have hands full of problems. The society keeps pressuring me into the standard of "femininity" -- an ideology that has no real use but to make one's life miserable -- and having to fight back is a time-and-thought-consuming process. It is only natural to forget that women are not the only people on the battlefront for their identity. Men, similarly to women, are held to a fabricated, unrealistic expectation of "masculinity".
Paul Theroux reflects on the expectations men are held to in the NY Times article "The Male Myth".

He provides with some insights on how this myth of manliness traveled from his youth to his adulthood, becoming more and more demanding and toxic. While Theroux did bring up an important issue that needs more vocalization -- as Throux did mention, it is unusual to think of men as "weak", but they are human too -- he lost me, as a female reader, when he brought up feminism.

What a good author would do is show sympathy to both sides, We, as people, are all pressured into acting or looking a certain way, regardless of gender. Though we do have different societal expectations to live up to, we are in this together.

What Theroux did, however, was bash women and the feminist movement. Feminists were the ones who brought issues like this to the light. They were the ones who started the deconstruction of social pressure and how we're raised to fit the mold. Feminism is not about reducing the struggles of men and emphasizing the struggles of women, it's about doing both. But it seems like Theroux doesn't quiet understand that. And for that reason, I found his piece to be extremely one-dimensional and underdeveloped. 

Reflection on Pillow Angel Ethics, 12/3/2016

The controversial case of Ashley, a brain-damaged six-year girl who, as willed by her parents, has undergone numbers of hormonal and surgical treatments to "deal" with her disability, has spurred many conversations and debates nationwide. One of these conversations was held in Midwood High School, as I and thirty other students deliberated whether or not the "Ashley Treatment" was an ethical, according to American values, decision. The article we had to base our response on, "Pillow Angel Ethics" by Nancy Gibbs, brought into the light both sides of the coin. While the author cautiously underlined the treatment as unethical, she respectfully discussed the benefits that come along with this decision, such as better mobility, lack of menstrual cramps, and the ability of her parents to take better care of her due to her smaller and lighter frame. On the other hand, the treatment violates basic human rights, is not safe due to a lack of proper research and practice, and does not involve Ashley consent. In the beginning of the debate, I had no real opinion on the treatment. But as I got to argue the side of opposition, I began to feel more and more intolerable of Ashley's parents and what they have done to her. I found their actions to be extremely selfish. While it "makes her life better", it was initially done to make it easier for HER PARENTS to take care of her. They wanted to remove discomfort that comes from her size and female nature, so that they can carry her around easier. This makes me think of Ashley as a chihuahua - the "mini" version of a full sized dog that doesn't take much space and is easy to carry in a purse. Of course, Ashley is a human being and not a dog, but her parents' attitude is somewhat similar to that of pet owners'. Why going through the struggle of taking care of a full grown woman, when you can freeze her in her childhood and never have to struggle with the "fallouts" of her adulthood. On the down side, Ashley is deprived of ever having a chance to express what she wants, since this treatment has most likely stopped any natural development of her brain. Well, I guess it did get easier to "provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love", right ?

Logical Fallacies Reflection, 11/27/2016

Logical fallacies are everywhere. On every corner, you hear things like "If you do this, you will be that" or "Since everyone is doing it, you should too". Because it's so deeply integrated into our lives, sometimes it's hard to notice the logical error in such statements. I think that the lesson we had in class helped me better understand how widespread these errors in reasoning are, and how commonly they are used in advertisements and media for the purpose of swaying the public from one side of the argument to another. 

Let's take a look at a Subway commercial that came out in 2012, starring Michael Phelps and his mother Debbie. This advertisement is several logical fallacies at once. Firstly, it's an appeal to authority. Michael Phelps is a very successful athlete, so if he says that Subway sandwiches are good, it must be true. It's also a false cause fallacy, because it traces a connection that if you want to be like Michael Phelps, you should eat Subway. Lastly, the advertisement uses an appeal to emotion fallacy when it shows the interaction between mother and her son. "Look, she is bringing him food because she wants him to be fueled during his training, and recover quickly afterwards. Isn't it sweet?" But in the end, all of these statements are false. Neither Phelps' authority nor his mother's caring character signify that Subway sandwiches are good or helpful in accomplishment of one's goals. 

What did make me want to eat at Subway was the food closeups at the end of the clip. More cheese-pulling and bacon-juice-dripping please!

Don't Fight Flames With Flames, 11/19/2016

Social media has slowly taken over our lives. It is hard to imagine what the world would be like if internet just suddenly disappeared. Besides serving as a collection of all imaginable and unimaginable information, social media is a platform where people can communicate with each other. We all have thoughts and opinions, and websites such as Facebook and Twitter allow us to freely share them, as well as discuss our disagreements. However Nick Bilton, the author of the article “Don’t Fight Flames with Flames”, believes that arguing online is a waste of time – besides often ending in anything but consensus, arguing on social media can lead to an entire digital mob that will “circle” around its target and throw bitter and vulgar insults its way.  Personally, I agree with Bilton's statement. I find social media to be extremely toxic, and many of its users, who think that there could be no punishment for their words, utilize their freedom of speech in the most degrading and insulting ways. I believe that the main cause of such actions is not cruelty, but rather a blurry line that separates an insult from an ordinary negative comment. What can offend one person, might go unnoticed by another, and unless you know an individual personally, you would not know what topics could trigger them. If each one of us attempts to, before engaging in an online conversation,learn a little more about one another - browsing one's profile can do the deal - the dialogue could be more productive since we know what line not to cross.