Weblog

Pronounce these words:

• church
• launch
• change
• teach
• China
• watch
• franchise
• which
• child

The pattern? Each of these words have a common sound. It would seem that the letter combination of ch represents this sound. Okay, with this new found piece of knowledge, pronounce these words:

• character
• archive
• Christian
• technical
• echo
• choir
• chorus
• chemistry

You should have noticed a problem there. These words didn't follow that pattern that I just taught you. Let me ask you a question: would it make sense to learn how to read (in English at least) by teaching that there are patterns only to have these patterns made meaningless with several exceptions to these rules?

This is a very controversial point of difference between schools of thought. One school (phonics) believes that children should be taught to read by putting letters together to make sounds. Phonics also deals partly with the meaning of words too. A general observation of the English language would note that most words ending in ly are adverbs. Proponents of the other extreme (whole language) believe that the pronunciation of each word should be taught individually. They would counter the earlier adverbial statement by stating that not all adverbs end in ly (e.g. too, very) and that not all words ending in ly are adverbs (e.g. kingly).

In some languages, this isn't a controversial topic at all. In languages that use ideograms (id est: Japanese, Chinese), whole language is the only system available and phonics doesn't work. In languages that use a phonetic alphabet (id est: Spanish, Esperanto), whole language will work to teach reading, but that would be the equivalent of hitting a thumb tack with a sledgehammer. Words in Spanish are pronounced exactly as they're spelled. (I can only think of a few exceptions such as pizza and placenames of Nahutal orgin.) Phonics would be the most logical option in this situation. However, in this case, we're dealing with the English language. English is unusual in the fact that its vocabulary is a combination of several different languages. English incorporates many words from its initial Germanic origins. The language was influenced by French after the Norman Invasion of England in 1066. Later, the language borrowed words from other languages with relevant topics. Words relating to food are borrowed from French. Words relating to music are borrowed from Italian. Words relating to shipping are borrowed from Dutch. Words relating to mining are borrowed from Cornish. Words relating to racial segregation are borrowed from Afrikaans. When English incorporates these words, it tends to usually keep the spellings the same down to retaining the diacritic marks on some words. Since we keep the spellings, we often need to remember certain rules. Words from Greek pronounce ch differently than words from Latin.

The point in explaining the history of the English language is to point out that since English is a combination of several different systems that (for the most part) have traits in common. Using phonics to decipher unknown words works for the most part but can cause embarrassing results with words like island and façade. In a computer analogy, whole language is like the programming practice of hardcoding. Hardcoding is a despised practice, but hardcoding will always work. Whole language will always work as a means to teach language, but phonics will work better when it can. So, in essence, both of these systems can work together to compliment each other where the other system falls short.

What I find ridiculous is the fact that some phonics advocates believe that whole language will destroy the moral fabric of society by teaching that there are no absolutes. Please explain how teaching that each word has an absolute pronunciation destroys that. Hopefully, that won't make sense to you. If, by any chance, it does, tell me. I'll have a contact form here shortly.

Well, yesterday, I wrote about American exceptionalism. Today, I want to write about something that falls in that same school of thought: English-language exceptionalism.

Let me start by explaining what it is that I hate about it: it's the arrogance that the English language is superior. I hate the concept that someone who lives in this country must speak English. I hate people who demand to see a person's immigration papers from someone in the mall just because they hear the Spanish language being spoken.

I'm talking to people who are arrogant in their Englishness. If you agree with me, you don't have to read the rest; you'll just agree with me. Let me start with the thought that English is superior to other languages? I cannot state strongly enough how hard the English language is to learn compared to other languages. English pronunciation is so seriously messed that the words that we learn just might as well be ideograms that need to be learned separately. English has an extensive number of irregular conjugations and declinations. English has an extensive amount of redundant vocabulary: regal, royal and kingly all mean the same thing. (Yes, if you're wondering, this is a plug for Esperanto.) Spanish is great for the fact that every word is pronounced as it is spelled (with the possible exception of the word pizza).

I won't deny that English is the dominant language in the United States, but I will deny that it's official or required to live here. There is no federal legislation mandating that English or any other language has official status (although I must honestly note that all pieces of legislation were written in English). Again, if you want to dispute this fact with me, don't; I mean you can't argue that two plus two equals something other than four.

I've read articles about people visiting Pakistan and considering certain schools there as primitave because English wasn't taught in the schools. (However, these schools were terrorist training camps, so they were privative anyway.) I hear people saying that English is the international language when Chinese and Spanish are natively spoken by more people worldwide. The trend in computer software is moving away from English terms such as cut, copy and paste being universal in every language to more locale specific products which use terms like couper, copier and coller. The absolute worst thing I have ever heard in this area is the thought that God ordained that His scriptures should be preserved in English, and all people should learn English to read His scriptures. I don't have to disprove that statement because no one can prove it.

The way that I see is that people who claim that the English language is exceptional have one reason for believing that: it's the language that they speak. I'm sure that there are some Russians who believe that their language is superior. To that, I say, “Дуракам закон не писан.”.

I've had this hatred for the way of thinking that America and everything in it are superior to anything and everything else in the world. However, I've never really had a specific term to call it. As I was reading the other day, I came across an article that gave the concept a name: American exceptionalism.

American exceptionalism is essentially the thought that the place that America holds in the world is a special one.

Growing up in America, I was able to experience American exceptionalism up close. Of course, there was the daily Pledge Of Allegiance, the national anthem being played at every baseball game, the annual fireworks on July 4. Of course, these don't necessarily promote the ideal that America is special, but that ideal popped up in the oddest of places: my Christian school. It's for this reason that I refer to it as an American school: Maranatha American Center. The school found it nice to have an annual theme. Somehow, the theme would be twisted one way or another to become a patriotic soapbox; Remembering Our Christian Heritage had nothing to do with Christian heritage but rather with American history. The school hosts a Girl-Scout knockoff known as The American Heritage Girls. The history books describe the British as a godly people who spread the Bible throughout the world. However, the perspective of the British is balanced to the other extreme when the book deals with the chapter on the American Revolution.

It wasn't to hard going to a school like that while still retaining my logic. As the student body president, it was my job to lead the school in reciting the pledge and praying for the nation every day over the intercom. I would hand the handset to the vice president when the pledge part came. As far as the prayer, I began it with a conventional “bless us today, Lord” prayer. I started to receive memos asking me to pray for the nation, the president and the soldiers in Iraq. Not wanting to share their devotion for the American ideal, I used terms such as community and civil servants in my prayers. Then, the memo was changed to state that I needed to “specifically” pray for the United States Of America. That was another job that I just handed over to my trusty vice president. Then, there was the 9/11 memorial service at the school. The school recommended students to wear red, white and blue for the ceremony. Again, not wanting to share the school's enthusiasm for the American ideal, I choose not to do that. However, the irony of the situation was that I actually did dress in red and blue that day (which would have been typical). I realised this on the ride to school in my red Subaru Loyale. I considered turning around and changing my clothes. However, I didn't feel the need to go out of my way to do so. I now wish that I did. My colours were taken for an expression of patriotism, and I was selected to to some sort of deal at the assembly that afternoon.

I can't say that my school was the only influence of American exceptionalism in my life. I got it occasionally from my church. I got it occasionally from my family. I sometimes hear my father rant about our nation's dependence on foreign (Arab) petroleum. He states that he doesn't want his money being funnelled into the hands of terrorists. I see oil independence in different terms. I would like to see the world change to an energy resource that is renewable, cheaper and cleaner for the environment. I tend to see my father's views as racially stereotypical: all Arabs are terrorists.

Christians often see America as “God's Country”. This is the very ideal that I wish to decimate. Yes, God might have had a plan for America, but couldn't that also be said of the other 192 countries on the earth? I find it queer that the U.S. Constitution Party advocates that the nations laws have a root in the Holy Bible. I can dispel this thought with ease:

• No American will deny that the country was formed from a revolt against the ruling authority of the time: the British. The Bible actually states in Romans 13:1-7 that as Christians, we are to obey the authority that's been placed over us. (If you don't agree with that, you either don't have knowledge in the Bible or American history. If you're about to say that I didn't take into account the historical context of the situation, you're right; I haven't because I don't need to. If you are about to say that I apparently haven't read the Declaration Of Independence, you're wrong; I have.)
• Even an institution with its head so far up Uncle Sam's butt while lighting off fireworks after eating hot dogs and apple pie at a baseball game such as Maranatha American Center will admit that the nation is horribly evil enough that it should never be allowed to educate its children.
• Christians which argue that the Constitution is a superior idea have trouble explaining why something like the Thirteenth Amendment would have ever been necessary.
• People who believe Matthew 7:13-14 when it says that only a few people find truth sometimes also put their faith in a form of government called democracy that gives power to the many people who do not find truth.
• If goes without noting that the concept of American exceptionalism not only goes against biblical principles but also against the American ideal of all men being created equal.

If you hold a contrary viewpoint, change it. If you don't and you feel the need to send me a nasty e-mail or a polite e-mail, sorry. I don't list my e-mail address here because I have experienced the pain of spambots looking for e-mail address on sites and then sending loads of spam to me. It has nothing to do with my not wanting to talk to you. I would actually appreciate it if someone sent me a message. If you have something that you feel you need to say, type it up. I might put a contact form up here in the future.

Visit my site again when the next topic I discuss will be English-language exceptionalism.

Life is meaningless. Whatever in life that we find satisfaction in is usually the stuff that we can't take with us. Lately, I've been finding satisfaction in fewer things. I used to be worried that money would be a problem for me later in life. Now, I'm looking forward to living a modest lifestyle. I used to search for satisfaction in romance. Now, I'm thinking that living life as a bachelor wouldn't be so bad. I'm understanding that life truly is meaningless. What is it that we can find satisfaction in? I'm learning that if you're not satisfied with what you have, you won't be satisfied with anything. Besides, this life is meaningless; nothing in this life matters, for what's important is what happens after life, and you can't take the worldly things with you.

However, if you're an attractive, single woman of approximately my age and you have a secret attraction for The D-Man, let me know now before I know that living life as a bachelor wouldn't be so bad.

“And Cleveland, you're the boss because of your attention to detail. Like when we play pool, you take so long to line up your shots; I just want to crack you with a cue stick. But I don't because that would be a hate crime, and I love you.”

Seth MacFarlane, “Love Thy Trophy”, Family Guy

I was just reading in the newspaper the other day that Colorado Governor Bill Owens signed a bill into law that would make assaults on homosexuals a hate crime. I don't understand the concept of hate crimes. I just have an issue with hate crimes as I believe the distinction is… well… dumb, but that's not the issue that I want to address. What I do want to address is the fact that the government is making a stand on the issue.

Homosexuals are natural. They are just as natural as murder, rape, theft and all the other nasty stuff are. The Bible itself says that homosexuality is a sin, but the government doesn't care about what's in the Bible. I have my own argument for dealing with why homosexuality should be illegal in nonbiblical terms. I call it The Chickenboinker Argument.

Here's how it goes: if we allow two gay men to marry each other (or even boink each other) because they are truly in love with each other, then, how can the government prohibit two siblings from marrying each other if they are truly in love with each other? How can the government prohibit a man and a child from marrying each other if they are truly in love with each other? How can the government prohibit a man and six women from marrying each other if they are truly in love with each other? How can the government prohibit a man and a chicken from marrying each other if they are truly in love with each other (hence the term)? Obviously, the government can't allow incestuous relationships. So, why is it that it can allow homosexual ones?

As an American, you have the right to hate anyone: homosexuals, Jews, nerds, blacks, people with green skin, triskaidekaphobes, left-handed people, people with blue eyes, people with brown eyes, people with no eyes, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Hitler, God, people with SUVs, people who like country music, Catholics, Protestants, atheists, illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, all immigrants, all natives, Spanish speakers, English speakers… Having prejudices against people is a right that people have. It's not the best right to take advantage of, but it's still a right. So, why is the government trampling on that right? Sure, it's not good, but neither is uttering four-letter words in public. Plus, I don't like the way that the government can take any such behaviour that excludes such a group as a prejudice. My liberal, I-am-more-important-than-your-mommy-and-have-a-say-in-your-development fifth-grade teacher taught us that a prejudice is dislike of someone for no logical reason. Well, my dislike of homosexuals is logical: it's sin. If you don't believe in sin, then, just believe that my homophobia is genetic. In short, I was born that way. What's going to suck is that churches can't expel members of their congregation that are sexually immoral as the Bible says that they should. A woman sued her child's private, Christian school after he was expelled when it was learned that the mother earned the tuition money through working as a dancer at a strip club. That's the way that the church should run things, but it's seen as hateful. Well, the church doesn't do things that the world will like; it does things that it should. I fear the church that pleases men rather than God.