"CNN Leaves it There"

Jon Stewart began his show last night by introducing arguably unimportant topics such as the "big game" last night while a video of a gay protest is on the screen. He harps on the fact that CNN is always "leaving it there" and postponing important discussions while they have a full twenty-four hours to talk about said important topics. Stewart goes on to poke fun at CNN for fact-checking an SNL skit in which Fred Armisen plays Barack Obama, claiming to have done nothing since taking office. CNN delivers a massive report on this skit and found that while many of the president's initiatives have not moved forward, he has in fact done something since taking office. The detailed approach CNN takes to fact check a comedy show while featured speakers on this show throw out numbers without any sense of validity is deemed comical. John Stewart continues by showing several instances of CNN guests saying spurious things and introducing made-up statistics without being asked where their numbers came from or countered with facts. Despite these horrendously inaccurate claims, the hosts of CNN simply "leave it there." Stewart is mainly criticizing the lack of fact checking seen in the media's discourse on politics, though he hints at their use of time and judgement.

In academic discourse, the vital - as opposed to superfluous - events would be the ones heavily analyzed. Because academic discourse makes use of the educated people in whatever the proposed issue is, it is more than just two people who have an opinion. As the objective of public discourse is to entertain, viewers leave less and more incorrectly informed after watching shows like CNN. Public discourse is easy, as academic discourse seeks to further the discourse rather than split it.

Sacred Language, Spoken Language

Upon entering the screening for this film, the fact this movie centered around the Hebrew language was the extent of my background knowledge. I was unaware of the tensions that existed as Hebrew transformed from a religiously sacred language to an everyday, common spoken language. The subtitles offered little help as I spent the entire movie trying to wrap my head around the concepts presented. Although I took little from the film in the way of true understanding, I did gain some knowledge about the differing relationships many from Jewish descent have with the Hebrew language. Each speaker interviewed brought something unique to the film, and I tried to take down the most striking things said by each speaker.

I missed the name of the first male interviewed, but his parents spoke both Russian and Yiddish. However, he only heard and spoke Hebrew in the home. He never celebrated Shabbat or any other traditional Jewish holidays even though he grew up with the Bible serving as a fundamental element of his childhood experience. I remember him talking about how some grew angry at the fact that the Bible was being used to explain geography and archeology. This is one example of how the Hebrew language was beginning to be used outside of religious contexts. He ended with commenting on the existence of Hebrew, saying "without Hebrew, there is no rebirth of the people." This man rejoices over the victory of Hebrew, as it has managed to be successfully revived, but fears the impoverishment of the language.

The second speaker, a lady by the name of Michal Govrin describes how she lost her family, and with them, her faith. She spoke of Tel Aviv, which I now know to be the second largest city in Israel. Michal informs viewers of a six-day war resulting in the erasure of an entire culture. She claims that only the Talmud, a central text of mainstream Judaism, saved the people from complete destruction. Mrs. Govrin also hints at some conflicts with Christians who said they were “true Jews, true Israel.” Michal's interview was followed by a song that was nothing short of confusing.
However, it seemed to evoke a strong emotional response from fellow viewers, many who were of Jewish descent and/or understood the language. The song ended, and 'hmms' and 'ahhs' of approval were heard all around.

The parents of the third female interviewee came from a family Egyptian Jews. she used the words dynamic and supple to describe the way the Hebrew language is spoken presently. She clarifies that the sacred language, or the Hebrew she heard growing up, is not as supple as the Hebrew spoken today. As a writer herself, she loves Hebrew with a passion. She references the Hebrew she loves as being the one used to translate children’s books. However, she can’t bear to read the new, contemporary translations - it's synthetic. The sacred language is no longer a museum piece; it has been toughed, spoiled. She claims that this is the result of Hebrew literature.

Roy Greenwald was very religious as a child, and often went to the synagogue. He was taught as a child to embrace the sacred language, Hebrew. Learning to kiss the Torah, Roy "put the verses in [his] mouth and memorized them." Greenwald says something really interesting: the danger of Hebrew, its beauty too, is when instead of being a prayer it turns into politics. He draws similarities to the Yiddish language. Apparently is a similar language but does not represent the same things the sacred language does. He argues that sometimes Yiddish holds on to stronger meanings of words that Hebrew has let go of because of political/military reasons. For example, there is one word in Hebrew that means security, while the similar Yiddish equivalent goes even deeper and defines trust. New knowledge to me, Yiddish was a “banished language” ultimately sent with so many of its speakers to the gas chambers. It was spoken by two-thirds of Hebrews before the war.

Etgar Keret spoke of how Hebrew is a language that at one point ceased to be a spoken language. He, as a son of Holocaust survivors, says the language is part of Israeli identity. For Etgar, the tension between the slang and the sacred language is absolutely fascinating. For reasons I am not entirely sure of, Mr. Keret relates more to Eastern European Jewish writers than Israeli writers who describe a reality he doesn’t feel a part of.

Yitzak describes his relationship with Hebrew in a more abstract sense. He describes that for some, Hebrew is a language and, for others, an idea - usually of Christian origin. Yitzak says that writing in Hebrew is an act of passing on a legacy, like writing in Spanish. Hebrew is a good example of the legacy that he’s received, "like a gift wrapped in gold," and the legacy that he will pass on. Yitzak grew up in an educational system that mystified the Bible, while excluding rabbinical Hebrew text. He then presents a more optimistic view, claiming "a language that destroys 'the sacred' can just as easily construct it."

Shimon Adaf's parents came from Morocco, wanting to master the Hebrew they heard around them. However, they soon realized there was another Hebrew - the one spoken in the synagogue. At the age of 5 while in the synagogue, Shimon heard men singing the Song of Songs, and realized this was a new Hebrew, a sacred Hebrew. He says that one can easily lose himself in the sacred, and this was an important moment in his life. Shimon tried to put the sacred Hebrew and the spoken Hebrew in to different categories, but found it very difficult. The more he tried to suppress the Hebrew of the prayers, the more the thought came. Shimon saw this when his first poems were translated into English and German. Language is powerful and translated can lose some of that power.

Haviva Pedaya describes a difference between the language she hears and the language she speaks – there is conflict, a struggle. She says the tension begins in kindergarten and continues through school. For this reason Haviva was silent growing up, at times she was virtually mute. She was so afraid of saying the wrong things thus disrespecting the sacred language that she was "pregnant with words" until she finally started publishing. Writing has given her the release she needed.

Zali Gurevitch was an especially entertaining character. He considers himself taking part in a language game, a game of Hebrew. Zali calls it a game of beginnings. Hebrew allows for the combination of modern and archaic in a "thrilling" way. It is Zali's belief that in order to create a new Hebrew culture, you have to move from a sacred language and sacred culture and – not change it - but revive it, kick-starting it again to create new genres and new ideas. Because it is the mouth that breathes and speaks, it is through language and the sound that resonates that we understand the meaning. Zali considers himself lucky to be able to take apart in the language that is Hebrew.

Michal Naaman says that with Hebrew, you can't say anything natural or authentic because the words were so elevated, precious, and sacred. He mentions diaspora, a word that many of the speakers before him also referred to. I did some research and found out that a diaspora is any movement of a population sharing common ethnic identity. While refugees don't always settle in a new geographic location, diaspora refers to a permanently displaced and relocated collective. Over time, remotely separated communities tend to vary in culture, traditions, language and other factors. The last vestiges of cultural affiliation in a diaspora are often found in community resistance to language change and in maintenance of traditional religious practice. After learning this, I could make sense of the frequent use of this word throughout the film.

Overall, the film was well made. If I could change/improve one thing, it would be a suggestion made by those in charge of Visions&Voices with regard to background reading. I would have been able to make more sense of the film if I had some previous knowledge about Hebrew and its status as both a sacred and a spoken language. This being said, I still found many of the personal stories very interesting. Even without the background information, the important role of Hebrew in the lives of those interviewed was apparent.

TAG and AXE: Smells Like a Fallacy...

TAG and AXE body spray commercials are famous for containing blatant and hilariously faulty cause-effect fallacies. This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event causes another just because the events occur together. The error in this fallacy is that a causal conclusion is drawn without adequate justification. These commercials implicitly, rather than explicitly, state that if you wear TAG or AXE body spray, beautiful women will be strongly attracted to you. In one of the TAG ads, a guy puts TAG on before picking up his date from her parent’s house. To his surprise, the girl’s mom becomes attracted to him after smelling him as she answered the door. One AXE commercial features a woman pushing her elderly mother in a grocery store when she smells AXE wafting in her direction. She abandons her wheelchair ridden mother and cozies up to the store employee stacking cans, dancing suggestively around him. These commercials incorrectly associate wearing AXE or TAG body spray with success in the female department.

LINKS!
Mom Makes a Pass
The "AXE Effect"

Access to Non-standard Dialects

There are many advantages resulting from keeping access to non-standard dialects open. This access gives society a way to celebrate the richness of diversity of a language. Non-standard dialects are not appreciated, but stigmatized. People speaking in the non-standard variety are quickly associated with a less educated or an economically poor background. Keeping access open eliminates the favoring of only those who speak the standard variety. When access to non-standard dialects are closed, the standardization process of the language norm further separates people into socially identifiable groups, those with prestige and those without. Society must embrace these non-standard varieties if its citizens are to feel any type of pride in their natural speech.

As favorable as it may be to keep access open, it is not practical. In order to get anywhere in this society one must have the ability to "fit in." As we have discussed in WRIT140, it is highly unlikely that the United States would elect a president into office with a thick Southern drawl or a tough Bronx accent. To put it plainly, we (as a society) vote for the person who best represents the USA - a standard English dialect is usually must. It is debatable whether or not keeping access open is even possible. Some may say that everyone could just be left to speak their personal dialects of English. A plethora of questions come to mind, the most prominent being: how will anything get done? In my opinion, the best way to tackle the issue of open/closed access to non-standard dialects is to:
1. Emphasize that all dialects of English have important values and cultures stored within them.
2. Suggest standard English as a sort of lingua franca shared by all non-standard dialects.
3. Enforce standard English as the dialect to use in most affairs dealt with outside of the home, especially in business and government. A look at history can tell us that those speaking standard English generally tend to be more successful.

Summing Up
While society should embrace every dialect for the unique perspectives they add to our daily life, practicality suggests that speaking the standard dialect increases success rate.

My Fair Lady

My Fair Lady follows the story of a young Cockney-speaking flower girl, Eliza. After hearing her ghastly misconstruing the English language, Professor Higgins claims he can transform her into a duchess. The fact that Higgins assumes his dialect of English is correct and every other one is wrong suggests that there can only be one "right" or "true" language and all others are inferior. The claim that correcting Eliza's language can turn her into a duchess implies there is a connection between proper English and high society. Wanting to be more than a common flower girl and run her own shop, Eliza seeks Higgins and dares him to make good on his offer.

Threatening her with starvation, Higgins forces Eliza through countless, insensitive drills to refine her speech. Among these were constant repetition of her vowels, "the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain," "in Hertford, Hereford, Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen," and general speaking with marbles in her mouth. This harsh and unnecessary treatment is a caricature of the hard work and suffering that goes into learning a new language. Once Eliza has "mastered" the language, Higgins and his colleague take her out to the races - a taste of real high class society.

Restricted to speaking of weather and health, Eliza stumbles her way through her first "proper" conversation. She passes of her mistakes as the new small talk and manages to snag the attention of a particular Freddie Eynsford-Hill. However, once Eliza becomes involved and excited in the race, she unconsciously reverts back to her loud Cockney self. This illustrates that once Eliza actually felt something, she went back to the language that she felt comfortable expressing herself in.

At the end of the film, Eliza is passed off as a duchess but she remains unhappy. Although she looks the part, there lacks substance. The movie as a whole suggests that gaining a language to fit in with society is not all positive gain. Eliza had to give up part of herself in throwing away her Cockney accent. The real question posed is whether the benefits of relinquishing a language or dialect outweigh the consequences.

Our Green Future: America’s Young Environmental Leaders Speak Out

Three Brower Youth Awardees were featured in the second of the two-part USC "Speaker Series," presented this past week.

First up was Rachel from Berkeley. She started off with poor footing, showing students a video produced by UCLA about USC's C+ sustainability grade. Most of her presentation dealt with her and her accomplishments, complete with the "ra-ra, if I can do it, so can you" pep talk. I wasn't really surprised at USC's grade, seeing as places such as New/North don't even have recycle bins easily accessible. However, problems such as these have a fairly simple solution. I do agree with her statement claiming "we are the most powerful stakeholders on our campus."

Next up was Billy from Yale. Of all three speakers, I feel as though his was more organized and informative. He started with a shocking fact: A certain glacier in India could be gone by 2030, a glacier that 5 million people rely on for their source of fresh water. I liked that he actually defined all of the "go-green" terminology, whereas others often throw this jargon at their audiences and move on. He spoke of the building blocks needed to rebuild the green economy:
-Reinvesting financial capital
-Preserving natural capital
-Maximizing human capital
He was an interesting presenter, probably aided by his use of powerpoint.

Last but not least was Erica from Stanford/Oxnard. Her story was a bit more compelling, perhaps due to its personal connection to her life. She brought up several interesting points, such as the fact that voices are more powerful than money. She spoke a lot about finding your voice, and how educating yourself is the first step. Finally, she mentioned that small things make a difference in thinking globally.

Overall, I feel like this presentation was much more informative than the first. The speakers were younger, which made their speeches easier to relate to. Even though I feel like I learned a bit more about the efforts being made to strengthen the global economy, I will continue to reduce, reuse, and recycle and consider my civic duty complete.

All in Favor of an Apology...

There is only so much an apology can do. It cannot erase the past or undo the harm that's been done. In the case of the Aboriginals of Australia, a simple "I'm sorry" went a long way. Prime Minister Rudd's apology proves that people admit wrongdoings occurred and genuinely feel remorse for the hate crimes. An apology, especially from someone as iconic as the prime minister, is the first step in mending relationships between the Aboriginals and the rest of Australia. Mixed responses following Rudd's apology show that the indigenous Australians had more positive feelings or their feelings did not change at all. According to a local Australian poll, gratification and relief were the most popular emotions that Rudd's plea evoked. This solidifies that an apology, if done correctly, never hurts.

Dear Aboriginals: We're sorry.

Australia was populated by a dispersal of humans who left Northeast Africa, sometime around 50,000-100,000 years ago. This dispersal was probably not a case of planned expeditions like the European colonization, but rather small movements of hunter-gatherer-fisher communities played out over prolonged time periods. This "dispersal of humans" became known as the Australian Aborigines/Aboriginals or "black" Australians. Similar to the segregation seen in the Unites States during and after the era of the slave trade, a large history of mistreatment dating back to the 1800s is found in the history of the Aboriginals in Australia. Perhaps the saddest bit of history in the unfair treatment of Aboriginals is that of the Stolen Generation.

This term is used to describe those children of Australian Aboriginal descent who were removed from their families by the Australian Federal and State government agencies and church missions, under acts of their respective parliaments. According to federal policy, the Stolen Generations were taken from their homes and communities ‘for their own good’. Some white Australians believed that it would be beneficial for Aboriginal children with some ‘white blood’ to grow up in a white society. The goal was to eventually assimilate all Aboriginal children into white society. While it is unclear exactly how many children were taken from their homes, some estimate that the numbers could be between 1/3 and 1/10 of all indigenous Australian children born during that time.

On February 13th, 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd used time in Parliament to apologize to the Aboriginals for the way they had been treated in the past, with a special segment of his apology directed those part of the Stolen Generation. However, this was not the first time an apology had been proposed. During the term of former Prime Minister John Howard, many urged him to issue an apology for the previous treatment of indigenous Australians. Howard refused for over a decade to apologize to the Stolen Generations - a stance supported, polls suggest, by about 30% of Australians. Those in opposition feel that the Aboriginals should be thanking the government for removing their children from their homes and giving them, essentially a "white" upbringing. Most Australians, however, did not and do not condone the mistreatment of the Aboriginals and applauded Rudd following his formal apology.

Here are some useful links:
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's apology
Reactions to the apology
BBC News article following Rudd's 2008 apology
More information on the "Stolen Generations"

Simran Sethi & The Go Green Movement

Why should I care? What difference does this make for me? What difference does this have on my future?
While Simran Sethi had a bit of difficulty making a clear argument for her GO GREEN movement, no one can deny her strengths as a public speaker. She was simply captivating, and extremely well-versed. In between non-sequential bits about her life and times on Oprah, I did catch some interesting and thought-provoking concepts:
1. The only way to save the planet is to figure out what each of us (as individuals) can do – there is no one way.
2. The environment is everything: everything that we care about exists within this ecosystem; if it is compromised, our loved ones/things are as well
3. Environmental rights are civil rights – we all deserve access to clean air and healthy food
4. The lofty goal of saving the planet is not going to happen in “10 easy steps” – it takes all of our work
5. And lastly, why should I care? What difference does this make for me? What difference does this have on my future?

Ms. Sethi claimed that the worst possible route to getting people to care about the environment is through guilt. However, she managed to make everyone in Bovard think a bit about their friendliness towards the environment, or lack thereof. Despite the guilt trip, Simran's "lecture" was more about what she's done in her life as opposed to what we need to do to help save the planet. I am highly doubtful that her presentation persuaded anyone to start an organization dedicated to Going Green, let alone buy compact fluorescent light bulbs. Even so, it was entertaining and I give Simran Sethi an A for effort.

Here is a link for a youtube channel featuring more information about Simran and her movement: The Green Editorial

The Magori Language of Papua New Guinea

According to a census taken in 2000, there are about 100 speakers of Magori in a total population of 1,012 people. Magori is an Austronesian language of Central province, Papua New Guinea.Traditionally spoken in the some small villages in east Papua New Guinea, the language was first recorded by Europeans. Much borrowing of vocabulary from a neighboring language, Mailu, can be seen in the dialect although it does not seem to have had much effect on the phonology or grammar.

Many linguists agree that Magori was on a preliminary Papua New Guinea list as endangered with two hundred speakers, who represent 40% to 60% of the ethnic group, and a few to half the children. Even though the language was reported to be used for all important functions, the people were negative to neutral about Magori. Its demise has been reported for the last decade, but linguists are finding it difficult to record the language due to the death of almost all its speakers.

Magori has been dying out as people switch to the lingua franca of Papau New Guinea (PGN): Tok Pisin. It is estimated that more than 1000 different cultural groups exist in PNG, and most groups have their own language. Because of this, many indigenous languages are becoming obsolete to make room for this new bridge to communication.

There are 15 highly endangered languages in PGN, so why is saving one of them so important? Because of its diversity, the people in Papau New Guinea take pride in their many different styles of cultural expression that have emerged. Each group has an important role in creating its own expressive forms in art, dance, weaponry, costumes, singing, music, and architecture. Aspects of these are found within PGN's small, indigenous languages and they contribute to society's overall cultural diversity.

To Save or Not to Save

While it would be ideal to save every language and preserve each of their unique features, one has to be practical. There are not nearly enough funds and resources to revive the 3,500 languages in danger of extinction. There are many conditions to consider when deciding if a language is "worth" saving.

A language that is worth saving has a large community of functional speakers. The language should be currently passed on, even if it is not being passed as effectively as is it could be. Ideally, the language is deep rooted in history. This proves that the language has some enduring quality worth saving. If the language has a written form already available, then the likelihood of it being effectively preserved and used in the future increases. The attitude of the speakers towards the endangered language is very important. An aspect of a language "worth" saving is that its speakers have a positive attitude (or a positive attitude can be created) towards the language. Linguists may find it nearly impossible to effectively save a language without non-speakers who display a willingness to learn and speakers who display a willingness to pass it on. Saving a language is one thing, but linguists must ensure the language has potential for modernization and every day usage. A language should not be saves simply to put it on a pedestal to be admired, as many suggest is the case with Latin. The geographic location of the language is not of much importance, as long as the resources are available and the language has potential "worth." Arguably most important, if the language contains large amounts of knowledge (especially pertaining to the natural world) it should be preserved no matter what the conditions. This information is vital to the progress of society and the loss of such knowledge is almost always irreversible.


Low feasibility and low practicality sums up a language not "worth" saving. This is the case when speakers of the language are few and isolated. If a language is deprived of constant communication, efforts to save such a language will go to waste. If the geographic location is difficult to reach, one must ask: is it worth the danger? Irreversible negative attitudes held by speakers towards the language due to social or political reasons also constitute a language that may not be salvageable.

Interested in what some people are doing to save these languages? Check this out!

Linguistics and Critical Thinking

Our social issues class, Language, Society, and Culture uses real life examples pertaining to the complexity of languages in societies to incorporate themes of critical thinking and the accommodation of uncertainty. Described in the USC Course Catalogue, the objective of our linguistics class is to "discourse patterns among diverse social groups in institutional and interpersonal settings; interrelationships among language practices and gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity; social structures and cultural values as reflected in language policies and practices."

This social issue class, similar to all Social Issues courses offered at USC, steps away from simply memorizing information and turns to attaining deeper levels of understanding on the part of the students. George A. Thoma’s model “The Perry Model of Intellectual and Ethical Development” supports that a change in focus from solely acquiring large amounts of information to an actual retention and application of said information is present in schooling as students mature and progress to higher levels of learning. Superficially, it may appear as though Linguistics 115 is a course that merely utilizes the skills required to listen to a long lecture and take detailed notes. By exploring deeper into the course syllabus and objectives, one sees that the purpose is quite different than that of the obvious level.

The actual goal of the class is to challenge students to reevaluate the way they view languages and reinterpret how and why certain languages came to be. To apply this objective to the bigger picture involving society and its inhabitants, students utilize skills pertaining to critical reasoning to address problems that are sure to arise in the evaluation of what defines a language.

Purpose of Goldhagen's Analogy

The Pope and Nazi Germany

If one thing is certain, the Holy Father of Catholicism and der Furer of the Nazis have both impressively mastered the skill of one-way thinking. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen pinpoints and parallels traces of a dialectic, elitist mentality found in the lives of Pope Benedict XVI and those who participated in Hitler's Nazi Germany to warn readers of the dangers that accompany close mindedness. The effects of such is seen as the pope now applies egotistical principles (similar to those used by the Nazis) to lead the Catholic religion. Like Hitler, the pope advocates that his way is the only true way. Because complex issues are not black and white, critical reasoning is imperative for those aspects that lie in the various shades of gray. Subjects pertaining to religion, politics, and other aspects of human life cannot and should not be approached empirically as there is no “correct answer.” Goldhagen argues that this pattern of imperialism is a deadly disease stemming from the limited points of view of those in power. As the pope has "curiously spoken little" about his time spent in Nazi Germany, Goldhagen concludes that the pope "has not fully learned" the consequences of anti-Semitism and other crimes of hate. However, Goldhagen omits the fact that Pope Benedict XVI did in fact take something away from his time spent serving Hitler in WWII – intolerance.