The Power of Words

As I looked through the comments on Doc Oc's most recent blogpost, This Just In: Texas Rewrites U.S. History, I was reminded of our class's  apparent fear of the phrase "Junior Theme". We insist on not speaking of it, or calling it by a different name and this seems quite similar to Texas's treatment of "capitalism". Both terms, "Junior Theme" and "capitalism" gain a more forceful and frightening negative connotation as we refuse to use them in ordinary speech. (Rather reminiscent of You-Know-Who, a.k.a. Voldemort, isn't it?) I find this Power by Disuse utterly fascinating because words also gain Power by Overuse. We call our country the United States of America, as if we are speaking of an entire two continents, rather than a portion of one continent. By repetition, it is often accepted without question. For a few years, the previous administration of the U.S. government had the general population convinced that Saddam Houssein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, as another example. To my final point, I am simply frightened by the sheer Power of Words. Maybe words are the reason humans are the dominant species, hmm?

What other example can you think of for the Power of Words? Any other modes words have of gaining power?

Health Care Reform, for better or for worse

The long awaited health care reform is currently in the compromise stage between the Senate and the House. It is now over 2000 pages long and it appears that part of it contains a limitation on an individual's ability/right to contract with a doctor. To clarify, to my understanding, this means that an individual would no longer be allowed to see any doctor they want and would no longer be allowed to pay out of pocket. Such a system is likely to create "areas of service" for doctors, where only patients in a certain area, or with a particular health insurance provider, can come to see them, and where the patients can only see the doctors in their area, or that their health insurance is willing to work with. This system is reminiscent of Canada's health care system, where doctors only get paid for a certain number of procedures, meaning that their monetary incentive to do more, and help more patients, is gone. And we must remember, many Canadians cross the border to the U.S. to see doctors.

A poll I found, by Fox, who I admit are skewed against the current plan anyway and, therefore, I take it with a grain of salt, said that 50% of the people polled were against the health care bill as it is now, 20% are confused and 30% are for it. As I said, the poll was by Fox, so I suspect (and estimate) that a more accurate poll of the country right now would show between 30-40% against, the same precent for, and between 20-40% confused as to what exactly the bill is changing, adding, removing, etc.

What do you think of the current reform? Is my comparison with the Canadian system accurate? Do you agree with my estimate percentages? If not, how do you think the country can be broken down?

To Cancel or Not to Cancel

By now we have probably all heard about Constance McMillen and how her high school cancelled prom. Whie I think that the school did the wrong thing by cancelling prom, I feel that they were fully in their rights.

First of all, as the article linked above says, the school cancelled prom a week after receiving a letter from the ACLU. While barring McMillen from coming to prom in a tux with her girlfriend is discriminatory, cancelling prom punishes everyone equally. I believe that this particular action was taken out of fear of a lawsuit, not discrimination. Second, while, and I will say this again, I think the school was wrong to ban McMillen from attending prom as she wished, it is fully possible they were trying to avoid scandal and angry parents; we have to remember that this high school is in Mississippi, not Chicago. If McMillen and her girlfriend had gone to prom together, it would probably have at least been local news for a while and could have caused trouble for the school's administration.

I feel we also need to remember that while the ACLU is arguing  on a basis of equality laws and freedom of expression, institutions, such as schools, do have the right to have dress codes and other rules of conduct. At the very least, not allowing McMillen to go to prom in a tux was fully within the school's rights. Also, the school is under no obligation to host prom. I believe they should just pay back any students that have already bought tickets, end of story; no more arguing, no more chaos.

Now that you have heard my view of this, how do you think should win the case? Should McMillen's lawsuit succeed? Or should the school be allowed to function as usual?

Response to Disaster

It appears to be earthquake season and I doubt anyone likes this season at all. Haiti's 7.0 earthquake wasn't even two months ago and just a week and a half ago was the 8.8 earthquake near Santiago, Chile. The damage in both countries was, and is, huge. The Chilean eathquake was far stronger (the scale for earthquakes is, I believe, logarithmic), yet the damage and death toll is worse in Haiti. I wondered why.

The best answer I have come up with so far is that the major factors are the amount of money and the organization within the government. Haiti is a very poor country with an incredibly corrupt government, unfortunately for its citizens. Chile, on the other hand, is a working democracy with a stable economy. The cohesion of the government in Chile is a probable explanation for why the army responded quickly and efficiently. With a fragmented government, organized rescues are near impossible. The relative wealth, on another note, is correlated with the earthquake-proofness of a large number buildings. Buildings in Haiti were frequently shabbily-made and buildings in Chile, at least in central Santiago, are specially designed to withstand devastating earthquakes.

Can anyone think of any other major factors that could explain the discrepancy between the force of the earthquake and the damage and death toll?