I believe in life’s bloopers.
It’s been almost six years since I started making movies with my sisters. We had a giant analog camera, parents that applauded everything we did, and absolutely no schedule at all. We filmed whatever popped into our heads and called it a movie. Most people that have seen our current work agree that we have come a long way since then. One sister writes out the script, one finds music, and the other edits. We are a well-oiled movie-making machine that has yet to reach the top. Yet despite our growth, we still mess up. In the cinematic world whatever mishaps occur on film are called bloopers and are immediately sent to the special features option of the DVD. My sisters and I enjoy watching our bloopers almost as much as the finished product. They remind us that despite all the arguments, wasted money, and technological problems, we still had fun.
If actors and crewmembers were perfect, then we wouldn’t have to worry about these things. In one take the scene would be done and sent for editing. But they’re not and thus mistakes are bound to happen. If I were the director, I would rather they laugh it off and start over than get distraught and run back to the trailer. Laughter lightens the mood and makes it easier to get back to work.
This same concept can be applied to everyday life. When you’re trying to finish an oral presentation in front of a class and mess up, why bother making an even bigger fool of yourself by turning it into a huge deal? If you laugh, then everyone watching will laugh and know that you’re trying. Just a few days ago I watched a normally shy girl sing in front of her entire Spanish class. She missed a few words and became so flustered that she began to cry. No one wants to be put in that position and the audience knows that. But what can they do if you’re standing up there like a deer in the headlights? Make light of the situation. Tell them that it’s okay and accept that nobody is perfect.
You could be jogging and fall flat on your face. You could be in an intense argument and forget what your side was. You could call your husband by your ex-boyfriend’s name. Life’s bloopers are bound to happen everyday to everyone, and we have to learn how to deal with it.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
This I Believe
Thursday, April 30, 2009
A Modest Proposal
Los martillos están en venta. Trois pour un dollar. I bagni sono a mano destra. Zu setzende Wartezeit. Have you ever noticed signs like these screaming words you do not know in a country that once spoke English? The truth is, America has no official language and with others now competing for popularity, something must be done to keep us from breaking apart.
Obvious problems have arisen from this situation. Many English-speaking citizens feel that English was the first language and should remain the only one, despite the constant flow of foreigners through our borders. Those same immigrants feel that as new American citizens their right to freedom of speech should be protected. Businesses, restaurants, and other organizations that want to make everyone happy are now caught in the middle making signs three times as big to accommodate each language.
The American people need something to tie them together. For the past few years, disputes over such things as government progress, environmental protection, and financial problems have split the country to a point where we cannot identify with each other. We are no longer proud to be Americans. And this is where my proposal comes into play.
Rather than randomly picking one language out of a hat, I propose a new language, one that is completely fresh and rejuvenates our pride in the United States of America. This means absolute obliteration of English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Russian, and any other language that inhabits our country, and the installation of Americanese.
Americanese will embody romance more than Italian ever could. It will bark stricter orders than that of German. Catchy Spanish tunes stand no chance when compared to the flavor and fluidity of Americanese. Charles V once said, “I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse.” Well someone better call up Charles and tell him that those days are over because now you only need one language to do that: Americanese.
People of every considerable group inhabiting America will create this new language. They will decide on the alphabet, sentence structure, punctuation, grammar, and all other aspects of language. Government officials will then take the reigns and distribute the information to the public where meetings will be held, pamphlets passed around, and websites set up. After enough time for preparation, the time will come when each American citizen will be expected to learn Americanese. After a year of studying, annual tests will be sent out across the country to monitor the progress and thus further schedules can be made.
Aside from the technical aspects of creating and learning Americanese, one must also consider its benefits to the country. Most importantly will be the rise in nationalism, for it is plain to see that we are losing the togetherness that Americans shared after World War II. Also, Americanese will help keep illegal immigrants at bay. Obviously, if you cannot speak the one language that everyone else in the country can, than you do not belong there. This, too, helps with foreign enemies attempting to listen in on government-protected plans. Since Americanese will be brand new they will have a difficult time translating it without the help of someone from America. Finally, an official language will transform any industry that relies on advertisement. Packaging companies can focus more on the aesthetics of the box rather than trying to translate “tear open here” four different times.
Now of course problems arise with such a daring proposal, but I believe that the benefits far outweigh the setbacks. For example, books will have to be translated and redistributed throughout the country. However, this gives us time to update everything that has been neglected for the past twenty years. In a way it will be like giving America a facelift. We will not be rewriting history or changing important documents, just refreshing them so everything is up to date. Another problem some might find with this would be teaching the three hundred million US citizens a completely different language. Anything like this takes time and obviously the older you are the harder it is. But what we must remember is that this process will improve America’s morale and by participating in the “rejuvenation of America” means you support the country’s improvement.
The ugly truth of the matter is that America is far too angry and bitter to even consider choosing an official language from the list above. If one group feels that it has not been fully represented, then no one can be represented. Our ability to compromise and discuss has flown out the window, leaving us with only one other logical solution.
Out of many, one.
Obvious problems have arisen from this situation. Many English-speaking citizens feel that English was the first language and should remain the only one, despite the constant flow of foreigners through our borders. Those same immigrants feel that as new American citizens their right to freedom of speech should be protected. Businesses, restaurants, and other organizations that want to make everyone happy are now caught in the middle making signs three times as big to accommodate each language.
The American people need something to tie them together. For the past few years, disputes over such things as government progress, environmental protection, and financial problems have split the country to a point where we cannot identify with each other. We are no longer proud to be Americans. And this is where my proposal comes into play.
Rather than randomly picking one language out of a hat, I propose a new language, one that is completely fresh and rejuvenates our pride in the United States of America. This means absolute obliteration of English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Russian, and any other language that inhabits our country, and the installation of Americanese.
Americanese will embody romance more than Italian ever could. It will bark stricter orders than that of German. Catchy Spanish tunes stand no chance when compared to the flavor and fluidity of Americanese. Charles V once said, “I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse.” Well someone better call up Charles and tell him that those days are over because now you only need one language to do that: Americanese.
People of every considerable group inhabiting America will create this new language. They will decide on the alphabet, sentence structure, punctuation, grammar, and all other aspects of language. Government officials will then take the reigns and distribute the information to the public where meetings will be held, pamphlets passed around, and websites set up. After enough time for preparation, the time will come when each American citizen will be expected to learn Americanese. After a year of studying, annual tests will be sent out across the country to monitor the progress and thus further schedules can be made.
Aside from the technical aspects of creating and learning Americanese, one must also consider its benefits to the country. Most importantly will be the rise in nationalism, for it is plain to see that we are losing the togetherness that Americans shared after World War II. Also, Americanese will help keep illegal immigrants at bay. Obviously, if you cannot speak the one language that everyone else in the country can, than you do not belong there. This, too, helps with foreign enemies attempting to listen in on government-protected plans. Since Americanese will be brand new they will have a difficult time translating it without the help of someone from America. Finally, an official language will transform any industry that relies on advertisement. Packaging companies can focus more on the aesthetics of the box rather than trying to translate “tear open here” four different times.
Now of course problems arise with such a daring proposal, but I believe that the benefits far outweigh the setbacks. For example, books will have to be translated and redistributed throughout the country. However, this gives us time to update everything that has been neglected for the past twenty years. In a way it will be like giving America a facelift. We will not be rewriting history or changing important documents, just refreshing them so everything is up to date. Another problem some might find with this would be teaching the three hundred million US citizens a completely different language. Anything like this takes time and obviously the older you are the harder it is. But what we must remember is that this process will improve America’s morale and by participating in the “rejuvenation of America” means you support the country’s improvement.
The ugly truth of the matter is that America is far too angry and bitter to even consider choosing an official language from the list above. If one group feels that it has not been fully represented, then no one can be represented. Our ability to compromise and discuss has flown out the window, leaving us with only one other logical solution.
Out of many, one.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Brave New World vs. 1984
According to Neil Postman, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is more relevant today than George Orwell's 1984 and I agree, especially on the topics of technology, class system, and sex. Although both worlds seem unrealistic, their underlying social issues are apparent now more than ever.
"As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think" (Postman). It is true that nowadays technology is fully embraced by our society, even though a few still fear its capabilities. The citizens in 1984 used technology to its fullest but did so with little interest. However, those in Huxley's London used it for more than the purpose of completing work and monitoring. They enjoyed technology, even as it changed the way they used their brains. Nowadays we are so accustomed to using computers and cellphones that we almost forget how to think. Those in 1984 used technology only when needed and the rest of the time preferred to focus on current issues affecting their society. Like the citizens of Brave New World, we use technology more for pleasure than business.
"... of a pre-ordained caste system ranging from a highly intelligent managerial class to a subgroup of dim-witted serfs programmed to love their menial work..." (Atwood). Although it may seem taboo, we have a distinct, Brave New World-like class system. Those who are bred to succeed usually end up with high-paying, respectable jobs and the rest fall underneath. Although we do give the "lower classes" chances to rise above their current status, the truth is that there will always be a system which includes Alphas and Epsilons. Orwell's novel focuses on two types of people: the proles and the workers (I can't remember the actual name used to describe them). Workers provide for their government and are given equal opportunities. Proles, on the other hand, live outside of this system and pretty much fend for their own kind. Our society, although divided, does not use such bold distinctions as these.
"Lenina doesn't see why she shouldn't have sex with anyone she likes whenever the occasion offers, as to do so is merely polite behaviour and not to do is selfish" (Atwood). 1984 did not focus on sex as much as Brave New World, however it was mentioned that Winston and Julia formed a serious and secretive relationship, both very aware of the trouble they would be in if the government found out. On the other end of the spectrum is Huxley's London, accepting the idea of open sexual relationships. Our society falls somewhere in between, more so towards the latter. While we do not enforce promiscuity, the government is far from invading the lives of the public to monitor their every move.
Both Orwell and Huxley created strange worlds that at first glance would be considered impossible. However, the social issues facing Winston and Bernard are the same ones we face today.
"As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think" (Postman). It is true that nowadays technology is fully embraced by our society, even though a few still fear its capabilities. The citizens in 1984 used technology to its fullest but did so with little interest. However, those in Huxley's London used it for more than the purpose of completing work and monitoring. They enjoyed technology, even as it changed the way they used their brains. Nowadays we are so accustomed to using computers and cellphones that we almost forget how to think. Those in 1984 used technology only when needed and the rest of the time preferred to focus on current issues affecting their society. Like the citizens of Brave New World, we use technology more for pleasure than business.
"... of a pre-ordained caste system ranging from a highly intelligent managerial class to a subgroup of dim-witted serfs programmed to love their menial work..." (Atwood). Although it may seem taboo, we have a distinct, Brave New World-like class system. Those who are bred to succeed usually end up with high-paying, respectable jobs and the rest fall underneath. Although we do give the "lower classes" chances to rise above their current status, the truth is that there will always be a system which includes Alphas and Epsilons. Orwell's novel focuses on two types of people: the proles and the workers (I can't remember the actual name used to describe them). Workers provide for their government and are given equal opportunities. Proles, on the other hand, live outside of this system and pretty much fend for their own kind. Our society, although divided, does not use such bold distinctions as these.
"Lenina doesn't see why she shouldn't have sex with anyone she likes whenever the occasion offers, as to do so is merely polite behaviour and not to do is selfish" (Atwood). 1984 did not focus on sex as much as Brave New World, however it was mentioned that Winston and Julia formed a serious and secretive relationship, both very aware of the trouble they would be in if the government found out. On the other end of the spectrum is Huxley's London, accepting the idea of open sexual relationships. Our society falls somewhere in between, more so towards the latter. While we do not enforce promiscuity, the government is far from invading the lives of the public to monitor their every move.
Both Orwell and Huxley created strange worlds that at first glance would be considered impossible. However, the social issues facing Winston and Bernard are the same ones we face today.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Claim Statement
With midterms hanging over our heads, I thought it would be appropriate to discuss the schedule that so many dislike. Complaints from both students and teachers make it quite obvious that we need a change, and I believe that if we only one midterm per day, they would all be satisfied.
One reason why this would be beneficial is that it gives students more time to study for a particular class. With the system we have now, there is always a handful of students who have two difficult tests on the same day. There are also those who have nothing or only one class on some days. By changing the schedule, all students have an equal chance at performing at the top of their level. And while some may argue that there is plenty of time to study beforehand and in class rather than the night before, completing two completely different tests just ten minutes apart is unfair, especially if other students do not have to. It would be more beneficial to spread out the days and simplify the students' lives. This way, everyone will have the same opportunity to successfully complete the exams at their full potential.
A major concern for those against this claim is that it would almost double the amount of days spent on midterms. However, one must look at who else benefits from it. This schedule would be extremely helpful to teachers who are under the pressures of grading papers and submitting grades for report cards. With so much extra time, teachers would be more inclined to focus on the job at hand and stop worrying about everything else that must be accomplished. Like the students, teachers need time to think about one subject. If Mrs. Latham is grading Algebra papers while also correcting those for the Pre Calc students and finalizing grades, there is a good chance that a mistake could be made. With less stress, it is less likely that errors will be made.
However, it does come into question whether or not a two hour exam would be considered a full day. If not, the amount of time student will be given to complete the exam may be extended. There are good and bad sides to this. First of all, in order to compensate for the extra time the exams will also be elongated. And although students may not agree on this point, it is beneficial to those who need more time and know the material. It is only fair that if you have more time to study at home that there be more material on the test. Coming from the point of view of a student, having an extra hour far outweighs the addition of extra parts to the test because there is less stress. Having more time enables you to go back and check your work.
In the long run, having only one midterm per day is beneficial to both the students and the teachers.
One reason why this would be beneficial is that it gives students more time to study for a particular class. With the system we have now, there is always a handful of students who have two difficult tests on the same day. There are also those who have nothing or only one class on some days. By changing the schedule, all students have an equal chance at performing at the top of their level. And while some may argue that there is plenty of time to study beforehand and in class rather than the night before, completing two completely different tests just ten minutes apart is unfair, especially if other students do not have to. It would be more beneficial to spread out the days and simplify the students' lives. This way, everyone will have the same opportunity to successfully complete the exams at their full potential.
A major concern for those against this claim is that it would almost double the amount of days spent on midterms. However, one must look at who else benefits from it. This schedule would be extremely helpful to teachers who are under the pressures of grading papers and submitting grades for report cards. With so much extra time, teachers would be more inclined to focus on the job at hand and stop worrying about everything else that must be accomplished. Like the students, teachers need time to think about one subject. If Mrs. Latham is grading Algebra papers while also correcting those for the Pre Calc students and finalizing grades, there is a good chance that a mistake could be made. With less stress, it is less likely that errors will be made.
However, it does come into question whether or not a two hour exam would be considered a full day. If not, the amount of time student will be given to complete the exam may be extended. There are good and bad sides to this. First of all, in order to compensate for the extra time the exams will also be elongated. And although students may not agree on this point, it is beneficial to those who need more time and know the material. It is only fair that if you have more time to study at home that there be more material on the test. Coming from the point of view of a student, having an extra hour far outweighs the addition of extra parts to the test because there is less stress. Having more time enables you to go back and check your work.
In the long run, having only one midterm per day is beneficial to both the students and the teachers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
