Failing: It's Not Fun

Fears can develop in various ways: from a traumatic event, from painful memories, and even for no reason at all.  Many of us fear certain things, and I am no exception.  People might consider me a bit of a worry-wart or a scardy cat, but all of my fears and anxiety can be attributed to my biggest fear of all -- failure.


I don't know why I am so afraid to mess up or to make a mistake, but for some reason the thought of failing at something scares me.  It is true that I am a bit of a perfectionist and that I try my best in everything that I do, but sometimes I try too much and it takes a physical toll on my health.


I believe that this fear developed because of my childhood.  I am an only child so ever since I was little I have viewed myself as the only chance that my mom and dad have to be successful parents.  That is a huge burden for an eight year-old girl to carry around.  Because I was so afraid of my parents being disappointed in me or my grandparents being disappointed in my parents, I have created this fear of failing.  I know deep down that I probably am doing alright and that my family is proud of me, but this fear is one that is not easily shaken.


As I am sitting here stressing over this blog and trying to make it sound perfect, I am thinking to myself, what can I do to overcome this fear of failing?  So far the only solution I can think of is to relax and to picture myself doing well in the future.  Fears, especially mental ones like this, are often hard to get rid of, but I'd imagine with time and practice, these types of fears can be suppressed and dealt with.  I just have to learn how to enjoy life and to not stress out about everything all the time; it's going to be hard work!

Semiotic Analysis: The Wonderful World of Wal-Mart!

How are Americans perceived?  Large and in charge, demanding, impatient, diverse, and loud are just a few suggestions.  And what do people think of when they think of American culture?  Well, there are many answers, but I personally think of Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart embodies basically every American stereotype -- the prices are low, the stores are conveniently located, and the people are, well, diverse.  It is truly a one-stop-shop which plays into our country's need for instant gratification; there is nothing that you can not find at Wal-Mart.  The stores are also easily navigated and well organized to help make one's shopping trip that much quicker.  The people who shop at Wal-Mart range from the lower class to even the wealthy, from backwoods Americans to new citizens; everyone shops here.  Because there are so many different types of people that shop at Wal-Mart, the stores are usually labeled in multiple languages, mainly English and Spanish.

One big characteristic of Wal-Mart though is their prices.  Their prices are extremely low compared to a lot of stores because of their outsourcing; they send a lot of jobs over to China.  This is very American because Americans today seem to think that they are too good for these factory jobs, they deserve more money than what those jobs will pay.  Since Americans turn their noses up at jobs, many are finding themselves out of work and out of money, and Wal-Mart is the only place that they can shop because of the low prices.

It is easy to say that Wal-Mart not only embodies the American persona of impatience, diversity, and connivence, but it is also consuming the public.  It is no secret that the gap between rich and poor is growing exponentially in this country, and Wal-Mart is becoming a monopoly because of it.  So many Americans already rely on these stores to get their basic needs, and as Americans continue to shop there, the jobs in China will keep growing and Americans will keep losing jobs (that they would turn down anyway), which would cause even more people who will depend on Wal-Mart's low prices -- a vicious cycle has been created.

It seems as if our economy is failing just so we can save a few dollars....we're in a sticky spot America.

A Global World

As I looked over the words from President Obama's inaugural address, I noticed the usual patriotic words such as "nation", "America", and "spirit", but there was also one other word that had caught my eye -- world.  I started thinking about how countries interact with each other on a daily basis now; communication is so easy!  Naturally as I scrolled through the past presidents, I realized that the word "world" was dying out and being replaced with words like "union" and "country".

When our country first was established, our founding fathers had to try to do something that was never done before -- unite a bunch of strong states that formed a weak confederacy.  In the early stages of our history, the politicians were not primarily concerned with helping foreign nations, they were concerned with the development of their own.  It is no surprise that I saw so many words like "union" and "constitution" from our early presidents.

I have never given it much thought until now, but government has turned into not only sovereignty over a nation's land, but into a global affair.  The world isn't such a big place anymore.  Back in the day, the handwritten letters or messages to other countries took weeks and even months to arrive.  Now with a few clicks of a button, government officials from America can be video chatting with government officials from China; this is really quite remarkable!

Since nations are so connected now, we all have to be conscious of what we are saying or doing, making sure not to offend another country.  A country's business is also less private; news spreads fast and when any scandal or war springs up, everyone will soon know about it, either providing aid or criticism.

A global world in my opinion is not a bad thing, it helps make everyone more cultured and worldly.  The global market also is a huge benefit from the development of this -- needed products and resources can be shipped to any part of the world!  To conclude, it is not surprising that our country's focus has shifted from itself to the world.  The United States have become united and stable, and with the help of technology, we can now focus on our global interactions, and our presidential speeches are starting to reflect this ideal.

Golf and Writing: How Do They Relate?

It is no surprise by now that I love to golf; anyone who knows me will agree to that.  Golf is not a challenging game physically, but it is mentally.  It takes a lot of practice and persistence to even be able to hack yourself around the golf course, while praying to God that you don't take a ten on the hole.  But once you become good at golf, it's a lot of fun, and as you look back on all of the hardships that you had faced to get there, you realize that it was all worth it and that you had learned valuable life lessons along the way.


Obviously it is a little hard to golf up here in Wisconsin in the wintertime due to the snow and the ice.  There are heated driving ranges which golfers can use, but they are just not the same as hitting off grass.  Often I find myself struggling in the spring to find my swing; I'm out of practice, and I have lost the rhythm and tempo of how I usually swing a golf club.  If you're not a golfer, it is hard to identify with that, but to a golfer, losing your swing is like losing your left arm -- you'd give anything to get it back.  As the spring turns into summer, my swing usually comes back, and I am able to shoot my usual scores which makes the game a lot more fun again.  I can only find my swing through practice and persistence though.


I compare this to writing.  When I was little, I LOVED to write -- I even wrote a twenty-four chapter "novel" when I was ten.  After I had finished that massive amount of writing, I was so pleased with myself and so happy with how it turned out.  As I read through it now, I find grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, fragments and run-on sentences, but I realize that I would not be able to write as well as I can today if I had never made those mistakes in my adolescence.  Writing takes practice, just like golf.


I still love to write now, but now I find that I only write for school, I never write for fun.  Right now I'm out of practice for writing poetry and short stories, all I know how to write is reports and essays.  I feel like if I can get a chance to  write and compose creatively again like I used to, I would enjoy writing a lot more than I do.  I feel like if I just practice and keep going, I will find the creative voice that I had as a child.

Secularism vs. Religion

For one of my choice essays I read "Is That All There Is?" from the New Yorker's "Critic at Large" section.  I chose this essay at first because it dealt with religion, and religion intrigues me.  I was hoping it would bring a new side to the Atheist-Believer debate, but alas, I was wrong.  The essay didn't bring up any new theories or points for me to either agree or disagree with.  To be honest it reminded me a lot of my philosophy class last year.

Because I found this essay in the "Critic" section, I thought it would be more edgy and criticize atheism instead of religion like many of the other editorials do, but after reading it, I'm not sure what side the author was on.  At first I thought it was pro-religion, then throughout the whole middle section the author was providing points of why atheism or "secularism" is better, and then commented on religion again.  I must say that I am quite confused after reading this.  The author said that secularism was better because it dealt with facts, but he also commented about how people "need" religion so there will never be a 100% following of secularism. 

(If you're getting confused reading this, I completely understand!)

All in all I would have to say that this essay was simply mediocre.  It didn't provide any new thoughts or view-points on the common debate, and it used a lot of unnecessary long words.  Plus he totally confused me with his last thought,"Secularism can seem as meaningless as religion...".  Is he refuting both?  How is that possible?  I must say that this essay has left me with a lot of questions...

What I Have Come Up With After Fifty Hours of Intense Labor...

I chose to read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn for my choice novel.  Many of you may say, "eww, a history book," and yes, I would agree that it is filled with boring history excerpts and stories that may not seem relevant, but overall it was a fabulous read.  Best of all, it explains why certain things are the way they are today.

Zinn didn't write the conventional white man's history book, he wrote American History through the eyes of the groups of people that were oppressed throughout our nation's relatively short, yet brutal 235 years: African-Americans, Native-Americans, women, Irish-Immigrants, Italian-Immigrants, factory workers, poor whites, gay Americans, and Latin-Americans.  He told stories of brutality and discrimination that almost breaks the reader's heart.  

The most surprising facts that Zinn presented, in my opinion, were all of the horrible and inhumane things that our government did to Native-Americans.  I had always wondered why the stories of Natives were in the beginnings of our history books but never in the middle or the end, but now I have figured out why -- they were never part of our society, they were just pushed onto reservations out west and forgotten about.

I was also very surprised about how far back our economic unrest trails.  Maybe it's because I was born in '93, but it always seemed to me that this recession is a newer problem, but as I read further and further into the book, I found that we never really had any economic stability...ever.  The richest one percent has always controlled a majority of our funds, and it made me think: if this gap between rich and poor hasn't been fixed in 235 years, will it ever be?

Lastly, it was really unsettling reading about how much corruption and hypocrisies our government has been guilty of.  For example, the U.S. over and over again stopped rebels in different countries from winning their independence from their unfair and tyrannical governments just so OUR economy wouldn't suffer.  I'm sorry, but didn't we win our independence from Britain?  We should understand more than any other country what it's like to have a ruthless government ruling over you.  The bombing of Hiroshima is also a great example.  A day before that attack was put into action, the government had received a letter from the Japanese government saying that they wanted some have some peace talks to try to work everything out, but the government ordered the attack anyway and then claimed that the letter had gotten lost when a media source had outed them.

The point of this book was certainly to bring the horror stories of our history into the light and to criticize the government for oppressing so many people, however I don't believe it was written to turn people against the United States government.  Zinn just wanted to bring the wrongs of this country to the government's attention in hopes of change for the future.  Even with its many faults, I still love this country, and I believe that it can become one of the greatest countries the world has ever seen if it can finally sincerely mean the words that our forefathers wrote for us, "We the people."

"The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed"

I must say that this article is well written, but boy, were there a lot of words that I didn't know!  This article made me realize that my vocabulary needs some work, but good thing I have a forty-word vocabulary assignment that I have to do!


After I powered through the vast unknown vocabulary of this obviously revolutionary article and figured out what a majority of these words mean, I noticed that Mary Wollstonecraft was writing about women's rights and the oppression that they, or shall I say we, faced back in the eighteenth century.  In her opinion, she seemed to believe that women were seen as inferior because of their gentleness and their "stupidity".  Wollstonecraft also commented on how men believed that women should be faithful servants and tend to their every want and need. She stated that men almost thought it was a woman's "duty" to serve a man, be in need of protection, and possess gentle and innocent characteristics -- characteristics that showed "weakness".  Men were obviously thought to be the stronger sex and because of that, "brutal force has...governed the world".


There were a few things about this article that confused me, but the most prevalent one was Wollstonecraft's views on the relationships between men and their wives.  All I got out of that section was that men believed that "[women] were made to be loved, and must not aim at respect, lest they should be hunted out of society as masculine".  I have to admit that she lost me a few times in her long explanations.


Wollstonecraft's article definitely took me a while to understand, there were so many long, almost run-on sentences and the vocabulary was off the charts, but I do have to agree that women back in the colonial period were stepped on and sadly stepped over.  Women back then were nothing in society, and women throughout the next few generations fought so hard to obtain their rights.  It makes me proud to know now that men and women are mostly equal today.