Relax, We All Make Mistakes; it’s Not the End of the Word

An interesting study of subcultures is one of cults that predict the end of the world.  How do they start?  How do they function?  And what happens, when nothing happens? 

According to Harold Camping, the world was supposed to end yesterday, and after a quick look-around, 6:11 PM, he and his followers have had to face disillusionment.  The group’s culture was based on Camping’s knowledge of God, and his subsequent doomsday prediction.  Now, with that the basis of their collective belief system so summarily attacked, the culture faces destruction.

In America, people tend to think of such cults as pure scams, designed to rip off money from the gullible.  But such a con artist would never build his empire with such an obvious and fundamental flaw, essentially putting an expiration date on his scam and ruining both his credibility and his ability to make money in the future.  So when the end of the world does not come, the “strong leader” necessary to pull people together is just as jarred as his followers.  Doomsday cults deal with this by either disbanding, or by rationalizing the situation: their interpretation was wrong, they were inadequate, the world was inadequate, or even their faith was so strong, God called off the apocalypse.  The Yahoo! article “When Doomsday Isn’t, Believers Struggle to Cope” states that one third of members leave the cult, one third, redouble their belief, and the rest rationalize to reach a state somewhere in the middle.  Some failed doomsday predictions have lead to significant cult fractures, like the one that formed the Seventh-Day Adventist church.  Such dedication shows the power and importance of culture, even in the face of a seemingly irrefutable attack on core ideology and belief.

Name Game

In America, when a man and a woman get married, the woman is expected to shed her maiden name and take on her husband's last name.  As a kid, I thought this was slightly unfair; what if the woman likes her last name, and why does she have to be the one to give it up?  But I never saw it as much of an issue.  Even now, when I know that the tradition does have sexist roots, I do not view it as a negative or prejudicial practice in today's society.  It makes sense for married couples to have the same last name for a feeling of unity, and if taking the man's last name is the norm, there is nothing terribly wrong with it.

Today I read an article about name-changes on Yahoo!
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/112736/name-change-dilemma-women-marriage-wsj?mod=family-love_money#mwpphu-container

The article calmly explains the dilemma that some women face with familiar names and social perception.  Women with careers that involve name recognition (such as artists or those in high-powered job sectors) have to "make a name for themselves" almost all over again, since the original name meant something to people that never knew the woman personally.  College students, at least, tend to view women who take their husband's last name as more caring and emotional, whereas women who keep their maiden names are seen as more ambitious and career-oriented.  Just this difference demonstrates the American tendency to generalize, then take things on face value.  This ignores the complexity behind every choice; there are a myriad of reasons why women might make one choice or the other, and an equal number of reasons why it may be important to her husband, thus influencing her decision. 

More interesting than the article, however, were the comments underneath it.  While the anonymity of the Internet and the optional nature of commenting encourage a disproportionate number of people with more extreme views to comment, I was still very surprised at the number and ferocity of sexist comments. 

• OH, quit your winning, either get married and take your husbands name as it SHOULD be, or stay at home with mommy and daddy as you can't seem to grow up. There is a reason the wedding vows say to love, honor, and OBEY your husband.
• Man was not created for women , but women for man. You are to become one.Take your husbands name
• Get a life, read your bible's God never once said that a lesser woman was ever a MANS equal.
• i know i would never marry a woman who did not want to take my last name. thats just not how its supposed to be. she is a woman, i am a man. if shes trying to separate herself from me all like that anyway then why should i even want anything to do with her?
• If she doesn't want to assume your last name...NOT WORTH MARRYING !
• Don't even bother applying if you have a hyphenated last name. I won't hire you.
• I'm from the old school I guess, because I still think if you LOVE a man enough to marry him, then RESPECT him enough to take his name when you marry him!
• >>>>>>> Any women using a ( - ) name ((ex. Jones-Brown)) are nothing but TROUBLE
• You feminists should remember that men created the safe little world in which you live and think you are just as good. The men are stronger and ultimately can take what they want -if they wish. Western Society is all that is between you and being property again.

The United States is a country where prejudice is not acceptable on the wide social scene, but that does not make it go away completely.  Plenty of people are not bigots, but there is still a significant minority that is.  Most arguments against women keeping their own names stem from either religion, or from traditional gender views, and there is a strong assumption that factors and decisions that are right for the commenters must apply to everyone else, because if it does not, it should.  Of course, this is less cultural and more human.  People in cultures with less freedom and more unity tend to assume their culture observes the proper way of doing things and others should follow them.  In the United States, freedom of speech and religion allow for many different groups with different views, but each of these groups still tends to see its views and ways of life as the "right answer."

Are you finished yet?

Should AP teachers continue teaching after the exam?  Rather than one of rules or practicality, the answer is one of principle.

Teachers who say yes:
Why should AP classes stop when others continue?  They are not smaller commitments.  Learning should not end just because the test is over, because learning is a lifelong endeavor.  Ending lessons after the AP would mean that the entire purpose of the class was to pass a test, not to gain knowledge for personal satisfaction and later use.  Of course, the test is important, but only as a measure and proof of mastery, not as a capstone to intellectual accomplishment.  As long as classes meet, it would be a waste of time and opportunity not to continue learning.  This point of view embraces both individualist and collectivist ideals; it values productivity and using time efficiently, but it also stresses learning for its own sake and moving beyond the "end result" to lessons learned.

Teachers who say no:
AP classes are wonderful opportunities to delve more deeply into chosen subjects and to experience college level curricula, culminating in a college level exam.  Through these rigorous courses, students must exert substantial effort to meet demanding expectations; after all their hard work, they deserve to relax when their task has been accomplished.  This does not mean that any further exploration is pointless, just that the curricula has been mastered and the goal reached.  Further exploration should be student motivated, not externally forced by virtue of the student being in the building.  The argument for learning as a lifelong endeavor is valid, but if practiced earnestly would require unending school, and fails to recognize that learning comes in many forms, and rigid academic dictation to an audience whose mind is already out the door holds no benefits.  This view also embodies both individualist and collectivist ideals; it stresses the result as the expressed purpose of the class, but it allows relaxation and enjoyment, and also recognizes that continuous work is neither the only way, nor always the best one.

How can one behavior be both individualist and collectivist?  How can two opposing views be supported by the same philosophy?  Individualism and collectivism are both perspectives on life, each containing a variety of principles which are not at the heart of the worldview, and so do not all need to be embraced in order for the person or culture to follow the philosophy.  Principles are the reason, but people can apply them to their lives in different and sometimes opposite ways, making the same argument support both practices.  If I were a teacher, I would want my students to leave with an understanding of the subject but also with a desire to learn more about it.  Trying to cram as much "extra" information into their brains as possible just breeds resentment.  Instead, I would show movies that relate to the topic, allowing the students to relax but also showing them some of the fascinating ways that the subject can function in the real world.

Changing Tides in a Social Sea

There is not doubt about it: online social networking has changed the way Americans communicate.  It has even changed the content of our communications.  But has it fundamentally changed how the next generation sees the world?  And more importantly, can it change the worldviews of young people in repressive societies?

People have pointed out the powerful effects of social media on current revolutions: protests organized on facebook and twitter, warnings and plans communicated in real time, information about initiatives disseminated on the web.  The instant, all-reaching nature of the Internet clearly makes it a useful tool, but it seems to become more than that.  Under a veil of silence and fear, people living under totalitarian regimes seldom find the audacity to believe something better could come to their nation, let alone the chance to find and confer with like-minded people, or the support and resources to find courage and purpose.  An anonymous network -- that too-often encourages Americans to reveal the nastier aspects of themselves and pursue destructive behaviors that would not be appropriate in the "real world" -- instead provides dissenters with the opportunity to express themselves and the venue to be heard.  Here, social networking really does change one's view of the world.  The small village becomes the planet.  The personal indignation becomes the shared and manageable plight.  The suppressed secret becomes the revolution.  A thousand candles lighting fires in those that bothered to imagine or dared to believe, drawing light and fuel from the brilliance in each other and the potential in the whole.

Social networking is not the answer to everything.  It provides only a tool; an opportunity, the desire must be there.  But when utilized, for school bullying, free-marketing, or moving against an oppressive regime, the potential inherent in online communication, is really the ability to release the potential within ourselves.

This Blog Is Not About College

Yes!  This blog is not about college.  It is about art museums.

Are art museums good things?  They are places where the general public can come and admire embodiments of beauty and exemplars of human aesthetic accomplishment.  Visitors can view at least copies of the prides of their civilizations, and come within inches of milestones in history.  They can travel the world and learn about other cultures through what they consider beautiful, and about what they considered important enough to paint or sculpt, and what they thought worthy of special adornment.  Windows through time and space revealing human meaning hardly seems negative.

But one should consider the role these museums play in their societies.  The idea that one can compile a representative collection of beauty and place it between walls, under a roof, crammed between similar replicas, sounds rather less appealing.  Who gives these institutions monopoly over what is art?  Who can justify limiting beauty to man-made creations?  Who can truly say that placing opus beside opus beside opus does not diminish the impact of each one?  The quiet halls of museums stifle expressions of delight and emotion connection, while shepherding viewers from piece to piece with an air of cool, systematic appreciation.  Is it really a place to admire beauty – or just narrow collection granting its visitors the same narrow vision with the paradoxical air of “culture?”

Wanna get away?

It sounds great: see your potential college choice, learn the fun things about a faraway place, spend some time away from work…  But American culture strikes again!  While traveling is often romanticized, the reality is that “getting away” requires much more than just taking a train.  The relentless pace of everyday life keeps tasks mounting, and a results-oriented American attitude means that all of it – all of it – has to be “made up” as soon as possible.  If the purpose of an activity were only growth, experience, and personal edification, then it would be enough to demonstrate mastery of the material, and it would not matter that the traveler never wrote a full research report, or answered the preliminary worksheet questions.  Americans need tangible proof of accomplishment.  If that means doubling or tripling effort to “compensate for lost time,” then that is the expectation.  There is no value given to the trip itself, or the experience and growth that came from that.  All that matters is that tasks were not completed.

The American expectation is particularly destructive when assignments are due online at a certain time.  Regardless of location or obligation, there is a general feeling that these tasks should be inescapable.  Instead of allowing the traveler to absorb the opportunities of exploration and discovery, or even just the benefits of relaxation, American society interjects its demands into the trip.  And as much as many criticize American society, those that live within it are subject to its rules. 

Wait—Look!

After the drama of university applications and wave of college decisions comes the vexing choice between institutions, which America considers the decision between possible futures.  The weight this choice carries and the factors used to determine the “best answer” reveal the views and values of American society. 

Parents want the best for their children, and press for the most prestigious option, revealing the thought that success leads to happiness, and name-brand universities substantially improve one’s chances for it.  Another crucial factor is price; parents favor sending their children to schools that will cost less money.  It seems logical that people would prefer to spend less money than spend more money, but what happened to “getting what you pay for” and “splurging for quality?”  People will pay the extra money to buy a sophisticated speaker system, or a top-of-the-line phone, or the nicest car they can afford, or that house they have really had their eye on.  If college is so crucial, why should the same logic not apply?  What makes spending extra thousands on a car or a house a better idea than spending that extra money on their child’s education, particularly given the belief that the choice will have an important bearing on the child’s future?

Of all the reasons to choose a college, the most celebrated is the concept of “fit:” the most academic and nurturing school that students feel at home in.  Of all the ways to determine fit, the most celebrated is a college visit.  Seeing the college for oneself, to view the buildings, sit in on classes, speak to current students, eat the food, and generally absorb the atmosphere is an excellent idea.  While fit plays into the American value of customization and the idea that there exists a single ideal that is perfect for each person, it also recognizes the importance of college as an experience instead of just as a means to an end.  Furthermore, it recognizes that some aspects of a place cannot be understood from a pamphlet, and that what seems incredible to one person, may not have the same effect on another.  So while some aspects of the college decision process reveal negative aspects of American culture, others demonstrate its strengths.

Do You Want It Fast, Or Do You Want It Done Right?

There is nothing new in the idea that Americans value efficiency and productivity, and that they prioritize the final product over the experience of its creation and anything learned in the process.  But the ideals of America have successfully wooed its people, many of whom hold a romanticized notion of their country.  How do Americans reconcile efficiency at any cost with the lofty ideals they not only attribute to the United States, but verbally and ardently defend?

The stereotypical US ideal is the American dream in which any decent, hard-working person can rise to the upper-middle class and live the cookie-cutter life of material fulfillment.  However, there are numerous romanticized illusions far less precisely defined, but far more systemic.  Whether celebrating nationalism, or exerting influence in foreign lands, Americans frequently tout the indelible moral rectitude of a fully-functional democracy.  A “government of the people, by the people, for the people” means ordinary Americans listening to the wills of the masses and prioritizing public desires over personal interest.  Even pure statistics disband this notion: the population is 66% white, the senate is 94%; the population is 13% black, the senate is 1%; only 17 out of 100 senators are women; the majority of senators and other congressional workers come from the top 2% of American wealth.  There has never been a minor-party president.  The two-party system forcibly polarizes the population, making Americans choose between only two rigid – and sometimes fanatical – policy packages in order to have a voice in government at all.  Yet despite clear evidence to the contrary, and hastily redirected public frustration, people cling to the notion of America as the ideal democracy.

If Americans are so excited about their national and personal virtue, why are they so willing to sacrifice it at the alter of expedience.  123helpme.com, englishessays.org, i-termpaper.com, bookrags.com, even websites with obviously condemning URLS like echeat.com; simply type “[subject] essay” into Google and the number of websites offering cheap, prewritten essays and term-papers is astounding.  Is it disgustingly dishonest cheating?  Yes.  Is it illegal?  Yes.  Does it rob you of all possible personal growth in the assignment?  Yes.  But these websites would not exist, especially in such numbers, if the “solution” was not so popular.  How does a nation so enamored with its own superiority (the greatest country in the world) trash morals and benefits alike for the simple chance to make a task easier? 

Call me!

One of my best friends in high school went to college across the country.  She promised to keep in touch with the rest of us back home -- and she actually has.  When people hear the term "long distance" describing any kind of relationship, they think of it as both a side affect of a moblie culture, and a wholesale failure in progress.  Every school year, classes are different, every couple of years, schools change.  People graduate and disperse to colleges and universities across the country.  Job opportunities pull people from rural settings to cities, or from one city to another.  School choice for children, neighborhood selection, housing prices.  The idea of a close relationship separated by distance, though unfortunate, is treated with inevitability.  People that try to maintain these friendships are often pitied, "it's hard, and it's only going to get worse."  But why?  People need face-to-face interaction to fully communicate.  It is difficult to have pertinent conversations when both know different people and places and events.  Yet "pen pals" were a popular concept, even if the two never met.  It comes down to willingness and the strength of a friendship.

Modern technology significantly eases this difficulty, however.  Facebook links people that have little to do with each other, and they find commonality in mutual internet interests.  They can watch the same videos, see the same pictures, and follow the same forums.  Video chatting significantly improves communication on a personal level by allowing people to see each other and use body language.  Can instant communication on almost every level and a readily available pool of mutual Internet experience be enough to keep a long-distance friendship going for years?  Society is cynical because it focuses on personal negative experiences.  But after a year and counting, I can be confident that it's possible.

Do I Know You?

College recommendations received; essays written; applications sent; interviews conducted.  Is this the eye of the storm before final judgment?  Not if you applied for a scholarship.  In addition to the plethora of information that university institutions have already cajoled, pestered, and blackmailed out of my increasingly invaded life, many of them are pulling me part-way across the country to talk to them in person – again.  Even with alumni interviews on file and just about every detail of my recorded life splayed out on the page for their perusal, scholarship programs require a battery of interviews with faculty and students, individually and in groups. 

But I do not need to enjoy the process to give it a measure of respect.  Despite dire warnings that SAT scores will determine students’ lives, colleges appear to strive for a more holistic understanding of their applicants.  Even combined, course selections, grades, scores, awards, extra-curricular activities, service hours, summer programs, teacher recommendations, and student essays cannot truly convey what a person is like, and in America’s face-to-face culture, the solution is personal interviews.  There is, of course, a certain naivety in thinking that a thirty-minute barrage of questions to a nerve-wracked student from a panel of personality judges will yield accurate results.  But the only real alternative is to know each candidate for an extended period of time.  Smaller communities might have that luxury, but if Americans want their myriad of college choices, they cannot possibly expect to form personal relationships with representatives of them all.  As much as university selection committees may try to mitigate it, greater choice for students has outweighed accurate choice for admission staff, and how people can express themselves on paper and in short bursts is more important for institutional opportunity than the truth behind the art.

Guilt by Association

"It's very likely that he is a terrorist."  Now you're pretty scared of him.  "It isn't very likely that he's a terrorist."  You're still suspicious.  No matter what the statement, if it is not a firm and absolute denial, in America, just associating a person with fear-arousing negativity is almost as good as an accusation.  American's don't go about their daily lives suspecting the lady behind the deli counter and the man driving the school bus and the kid protecting his back pack and the couple jogging in the park and the old lady feeding the pidgeons of being terrorists.  But if something were to connect one of these otherwise innocuous figures with terrorism, then the suspicion would be difficult to erase.  That is the problem facing many Muslims in America.  The major terror plots directed towards Americans come from Islamic extremists.  Obviously, not every Muslim is a terrorist.  That Muslim over there, it isn't very likely that he's a terrorist.  But just that connection, just that incidentally shared unifying factor is enough to link any Muslim to terrorism, leading to fear, mistrust, and hatred.  Americans like to simplify things, and they don't like this wishy-washy war of US soldiers against particular insurgents among an innocent populace with cousins welcomed on our shores.  No, the world must be black and white, us and them, brave Americans fighting the sneaky, subversive radicals.  How do you find one, nice and simple?  Look, there's a Muslim.  Western cultures in general favor dichotomy and heroic struggle between good and evil where the righteous prevail.  While Eastern cultures emphasize balance, Western civilizations fight evil dragons to save innocent ladies.  And though the daring knight has evolved, Americans still find threats, generalize and demonize their attackers, and lionize themselves for standing against such widespread and potent an enemy.  Americans connect Muslims with terrorists because it simplifies their world view, adds righteousness to their cause, and makes them more "powerful" for standing against such an enemy.  Once indicated, it is difficult for the innocent to break free.

ProcrastiNation

If I had any talent I would make this into a web comic:
Reads: KEY TO ULTIMATE FULFILLMENT -- PUSH BUTTON
"Nah, I've got time tomorrow"

Common American stereotypes create the image of an industrious society, obsessed with maximizing time and remaining punctual.  Much of American behavior supports this view.  "You're wasting time!"  From the old adage "time is money," to the common rebuke "you're late!" Americans seem to value time and respect deadlines.  Even the word "deadline," favored heavily over "due date" and similar alternatives, paints a grave picture of punctuality's dire and non-negotiable importance. 

So why is procrastination rampant?  I think it's human nature.  People want to avoid unpleasantness, so they naturally put off tasks they will not enjoy.  Only when it becomes clear that there is no extra time left does the unpleasantness of punishment for not completing the work outweight the desire not to address the issue.  What Americans procrastinate, therefore, reveals what they do not enjoy.  Work, homework, writing tasks, tedious, brainless work, work they do not feel confident in their ability to complete well.  That paints an interesting picture.  Americans do not like intellectually laborious work; if it feels like it is going to be very difficult, they naturally procrastinate it.  But on the other hand, if the work will take a lot of time but not result in a learning experience or accomplish anything useful, it is detested just as much.  Quick tasks that require little effort can be pushed off easily, so Americans often decide to relax instead.  But assignments that require more time, particularly those that may need further explanation or research, are also put off, even though doing so is far more detrimental.  That might be due to subsconcious cost-benefit analysis.  Harder tasks that one does not feel equal too will require more effort to complete and ultimately produce a poorer result: more
cost, less benefit. 

So maybe it is the nature of the work, but with so many contradictions, it seems to be just the work itself.  The comic I wrote above is ridiculous, because nobody would procrastinate something positive.  Americans do not like exertion.  They do not like following others' orders either, or completing tasks because others deem them necessary.  In the case of homework particularly, completion only makes a difference to the student, but the teacher is the one enforcing it, creating a subconscious feeling of being dominated and controlled.  And American's hate to feel powerless.

Does this Make You Uncomfortable?

Facial painting and adornment forms a staple of countless cultures past and present.  It is often used in ceremonies, particularly those that encourage communion with supernatural beings, like gods and spirits.  Strange faces and masks easily evoke otherworldly images.  Even in the modern age of pragmatism and materialism, face painting survives in a myriad of cultures, including in America.

From birthday parties to circus performances, clowns carry on the tradition of ceremonial pigmenting -- with a typical American twist.  What was once spiritual is now facetious.  Clowns entertain children with balloons.  They act the buffoon before popcorn-laden audiences awaiting entertainment from trained animals. 

But somehow, clowns have not become the unidimentional purveyors of cheap cheer.  There is an element of creepiness about them -- something disconcerting in their misshapen costumes and painted smiles.  Why do so many Americans, fully aware that the "otherworldly creatures" are ordinary people, find clowns disconcerting?  Well, clowns have painted expressions, usually of giddiness or joy, which makes it more difficult to read a clown's facial expressions.  In a culture of "look me in the eye," unreadable faces betraying little true emotion are unsettling.  There are comparatively few ceremonial behaviors in the United States, making it important for people to read each other's emotions to determine their actions.  And people want to know each other and interact positively and make impression.  They have trouble reading emotion behind the painted smile.

This unequal communication just might be sinister, which is why the evil clown theme is so popular in the United States.  See, the murderous Joker:

Man's Best Friend

If dogs are man’s best friends, why do we own them?  In America as in other Western cultures, people consider it normal to own animals, and to not just friendships, but explicitly master-servant relationships.  Pet owners put collars on their dogs and cats and microchips in their other animals to identify them as property, and try to teach them to do their bidding.

If the animal is well-treated and happy, I personally do not have a problem with it.  A cat neither understands nor feels bound to a human’s idea of hierarchy.  But it is interesting to consider the human’s perspective.  Many Americans talk to their pets like they do to babies.  This is a far cry from the respect and even reverence that other cultures show animals.  Do Americans simply lack respect for the animal kingdom, or do they need to feel dominant over others, and find animals convenient targets?  Most pets are completely submissive, and a “good” dog does its master’s bidding.  We judge the worth of an animal based on its obedience.  

Americans also have interesting attitudes about the role of animals in society.  They use them for work, for food, for clothing, and for companionship, there is a divide when it comes to “pet” animals.  Chickens are commonly considered food.  Cats are commonly considered pets.  People with chickens for pets are “weird” and few people could stand the idea of sautéed kitten.  In other cultures many more animals are considered edible.  China, for instance, eats dogs.  But Americans feel attached to their pets and do not feel comfortable thinking about any member of the specie being eaten or skinned.

Americans may feel superior to animals, but they are compassionate towards “pet” animals.  Animal torture is actually a crime, even though pets are legally property.  People clip the wings of free-spirited birds, but they keep them fed and cleaned and loved.  While Americans might not always know what is best for their animals, and may not always be within their rights to decide, they do try to do what is right by them. 

V-Day

Imagine a holiday breaking the cold of winter with the warmth of love, closeness, and romance – and you’ve found the opposite of Valentine’s Day.  Every February 14, the month-long parade of garish color-combos, ubiquitous lace hearts, and armed half-naked babies culminates in a final exam.  A holiday that used to be a handy excuse to celebrate affection has taken a rather sinister turn in American culture.  Telling people how you feel about them, being sweet, and spending time with your significant other should not need a special day, and even in bustling, work-comes-first USA, people know this.  So instead, Valentine’s Day is time for a demonstration of love that has grown increasingly materialistic. 

The girlfriend that uses her Valentine’s gift to determine “how much you really love me” is a stereotypical nightmare, but it doesn’t deviate from the premise of the holiday, which requires couples to quantify their affection and express it the form of material of material goods. 

For weeks beforehand, televisions are aglow with images of smiling women accepting expensive gifts from “savvy men” who “know” that the way into a woman’s heart is through chocolates, flowers, and especially jewelry.  The woman is thrilled at the “perfect” diamond necklace, the man is kissed passionately and praised with a phrase like “how did you know?” and the commercial ends by encouraging men to “get her something special this Valentine’s Day.”  Everywhere from department stores to grocery stores, greeting cards and gift cards claim to spread “extra-special” cheer.  Americans want to feel special and corporations use this to sell products, attempting to make their merchandise the “standard” for expressing love.  But love can’t be successfully converted into material goods.  Companies actually feed men false ideas about what makes women happy.  Many women prefer hand-written cards to store-bought messages designed for female stereotypes, flying in the face of “general wisdom.”  While some women want chocolate, others view such a gift as an empty gesture without real forethought, and therefore without heart.  Is it any surprise men have trouble navigating such a treacherous occasion?

But that doesn’t mean it’s easy for women either.  American society is largely patriarchal: expecting men to pursue women, to make all the first moves, and to be the romantically creative ones.  Because of this, Valentine’s Day focuses on men, which actually leaves women more confused.  With all this hype about men giving gifts, should women even buy something?  Probably, but what?  There aren’t even stereotypes to fall back on.  Sure women aren’t in the spotlight when it comes to Valentine’s Day gift-giving, but the wrong gift could still cause problems.  Internet searches produce a myriad of mushy advice: heart-shaped dogs tags with each others’ names on them, m&ms with messages like “luv me,” t-shirts with “I ♥ My Girlfriend.”  Valentine’s Day might center around love, but few self-respecting guys would wear a shirt like that, and such a gift only makes the man uncomfortable.

There is also the question of scope, which I suspect causes many of the break-ups on Valentine’s Day.  One partner gives the other a small gift, thinking that it isn’t a major holiday, but that he/she wanted to show that he/she what thinking of her/him.  The other partner, however, goes all-out because he/she “takes the relationship seriously.”  This may just be a difference in how the pair views the holiday, but such a misunderstanding, coupled with high expectations and a culture that expects love to translate into objects, this discrepancy can be taken as a difference in attitude about the relationship itself.  And many people use the day not to express affection, but to evaluate their romantic position in life – and the results are not always positive.  That’s why, of all the days of the year, Valentine’s Day is host to more break-ups than any other.  And they call it the “day for love.”

Keepin' it real?

Are Americans practical people?  Many cultures celebrate dreams as windows into the soul, the future, or the afterlife, but apart from some "just for fun" dream analysis Americans do not buy into this.  The occassional-special interest "daily horoscope" in America is also a far cry from cultures that seriously consider astrological signs when making a variety of decisions, from naming children to approving potential marriages.  And while superstitions abound -- from crossing paths with black cats to stepping on sidewalk cracks -- it's a rare American that would blame misfortunes of failing to observe such superstitions.  Whether ghosts or curses, prophecies or palmistry, Americans seem to avoid at least publicly endorsing the unproven.  Not even religion is immune from a disregard for the metaphysical.  In America, Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter are largely secular celebrations of family, or even commercialism, and ABCNEWS reports that only 38% of Americans claim to attend weekly religious services.  And consumerism itself, a love for money over other values, could mean preference for the tangible.

But though Americans may consider themselves practical people, their actions speak louder than words.  Large amounts of credit card debts, indicative of Americans routinely living beyond their means, indicate the triumph of the idea of money over its tangible presence.  Though they can get riled up about politics, most Americans care little for the underlying facts, demonstrating a distinct preference for ideology over hard evidence.  (Examine, for instance, the common assertion that America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles.  The Constitution separates Church and state to form a deliberately secular government, and the revered Founding Fathers were largely deists and atheists.)  The American dream that people cling to is statistically unattainable, but often cited as epitome of freedom.  More still, Americans frequently assert that the United States is the “greatest country in the world,” and they seem to honestly believe it, but where is the evidence for this sense of superiority?  China and much of Asia surpass America in standardized test scores.  India, China, and other nations have higher economic growth rates, and beat the US technological advances.  Most European countries do far more for their citizens than the American government does, and the US does not even make the top ten in standard of living.  By what measure is America the greatest nation?  Wealth?  We have a deficit in the world: over $14 trillion (About.com).  And while an argument can be made for the American military, nearly ten years of war in the Middle East has left it drained and the American people tired of war.  The US isn’t even popular on the world stage.  Yet Americans continue to consider themselves citizens of the greatest nation in the world.

So are Americans practical or realistic?  Some of them are.  But though aspects of US society spurn irrationality, Americans in general are not practical.

Why does America laugh at "FAIL?"

FAIL is an internet sensation!  But why?  From websites that specialize in showcasing intellectual blunders to general comedy sites chock-full of "fails," it's clear that American web users, (as well as the wider English-speaking internet), enjoy viewing, commenting on, and laughing at other people's mistakes.  In fact, many of these photoblogs are user generated; all pictures are uploaded (and captioned where applicable) by fans.  And considering the sheer volume of images and web hits, that's a lot of fans.  But why are these pictures so popular?

An Average Sample:

FAIL offers three cheers for epic stupidity, from momentary lapses in judgment, immortalized on film, to remarkable alternatives for critical thinking.  American culture appreciates instant irony, which is often embodied in FAIL pictures.  There is also a sense of relate-ability that lets viewers poke fun at themselves, (who hasn't left the lens cap on at some point?), yet also makes them feel subtly more intelligent, since they can easily identify the problem and don't envision themselves, say, hosing down a car in the rain.  It's also something of a puzzle.  Everyone has ideas that sound brilliant at the time... And there's an amusing challenge in the question "what were they thinking?"

Personally, I laugh at the irony: how people can do the perfect opposite of what makes most sense.  But whatever the appeal, FAIL pictures remain part of American cultural humor.