The newest form of bullying (note that “bully” can be a noun or a verb) is online or cyber-bullying, where students use the Internet or phone text messages to scare or intimidate other students.  This usually happens when the students are at home, not in school, but some parents think that the schools should discipline (punish) online bullies even if they do their bullying outside of school.  This has always been a difficult area for schools: Should they punish students who misbehave (act badly) when they are not in school, or only when they misbehave in school?  There is no easy answer to this question, and every school in the U.S. deals with (handles; takes care of) the problem differently.

To pull (someone) into (something) means to involve someone in an action or situation when that person doesn’t really want to be involved.  A fray is an argument, fight, or contest.  So the headline means that students who are harassing (bullying) other students using the Internet or texting are forcing schools to get involved in an area where many of them don’t want to be involved — punishing students for bulling outside of school.

For some possibly tragic (very sad) consequences (results) of bullying, see our English Cafe 242.

Should schools discipline students who misbehave outside of school hours?  How do schools in your country handle this problem?

~Jeff

Photo: Scene from Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, Public Domain

Could you live on $1 a day for food?  Two California high school teachers decided to try spending just $1 a day, and they wrote a blog about their experience.  The blog took off, or became very popular, and they wrote a book based on their experience called On a Dollar a Day.

Another recent book called No Impact Man grew out of (resulted from) another blog by a New York man who spent one year trying to live without any negative impact or effect on the environment.  Another blog is devoted to (with most of its time and energy spent on) not riding in an automobile.  Yet another blog is written by a a Seattle woman who describes herself as a fashionista (a close follower of fashion) and is about not buying any new clothes, other than underwear, for one year.

What is the motivation behind these deprivation experiments? Some of them are being done to raise awareness (make more people aware of) important issues, such as saving the environment.  Others are trying to save money in a bad economy.  Still others are trying to make a change in their lives for the good.  And, of course, some are gathering material for a book.

So what happened to the teachers who spent only $1 a day on food?  Their experiment lasted one month and it was a major challenge (difficult thing to do).  They were always hungry, they were dizzy (feeling like the room is spinning (going around and around) when it wasn’t), and they were crabby (irritable; bad-tempered) all the time.  But after the experiment, the two teachers said they learned an important lesson: They realized that they didn’t need to eat as much as they were accustomed to (used to; in the habit of) eating to live.

What do you think of these types of deprivation experiments?  Do you think a deprivation experiment in your own life may be helpful?

Let’s take the computer as an example.  If you’re like me, you spend a lot of time in front of one.  Could you (or I) go without the computer for a few days or even a few weeks, even if you (or I) didn’t need it for work?  What a terrible and wonderful thought!

~ Lucy

There are a number of possible explanations for this finding (result of research).  First, by the time you are 50, you are likely to be advanced in your career, making a good salary (money for work), and feeling in control of your life better than when you first started out working in your 20s and 30s.  Second, if you have children, they are likely to be older adolescents or adults, which leaves you more time for yourself.  Third, you may have a more balanced, realistic view of life in general (overall) and your life in particular (specifically).  By 50, you have seen more of the world and the people in it, and can perhaps see that temporary setbacks (problems) are just that – temporary, for a short time only.

I’m only 46, so I have four more years before my life gets better.  I can’t wait to be 50!

~Jeff

One day, the story goes (says), young George was outside and his father came up to him (came close to him) to ask a question.  “George, I saw that someone chopped down that cherry tree in back of the house,” his father said.  To chop down means to kill a tree or large plant using a sharp object, typically an axe, which is like a sharp metal knife but much stronger (see photo at right).  You must swing (move quickly) the axe to hit the bottom of the tree and slowly cut into the tree until it falls.  “Did you chop it down?” his father asked.  George immediately replied, “I cannot tell a lie (say something untrue); I did it with my little hatchet (small axe).”  George could have lied, you see, but instead he was honest.  The moral (ethical lesson) for young children, of course, is that they should be honest, too.

But what happened when George grew up?  It seems that while he may have been honest, he was not very conscientious (careful about making a mistake or doing something wrong) or responsible.  According to a recent news article, Washington had gone to the New York Public Library on October 5, 1789, to borrow (take out; use temporarily) a book called The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel (I’m sure you are all familiar with it).  When you borrow a book from the library, you are of course supposed to bring it back (return it to the library) by its due date (the end of your loan period, typically a few weeks) so that other people can use it, too.  Well, now we learn that old George – by then, President Washington – never returned his book.

The library recently discovered that the book had not been returned  (it “only” took them 200+ years!), and asked the staff (employees) at George Washington’s home, Mount Vernon, about it.  The staff bought another copy of the book and presented it to the library to replace the missing copy.

But the story doesn’t end there. When you borrow a book from the library and you don’t return it, you normally have to pay a fine (fee; money as punishment) for each day it is late (not returned).  The New York Public Library calculated (determined; figured out) that Washington owed a fine of approximately $300,000.  (By comparison, President Obama’s yearly salary is $400,000.)  Who’s going to pay that fine?

~Jeff

What may also be interesting to you may be a list compiled by Joel Stein, a columnist (writer or journalist who writes regularly for a newspaper or magazine) at Time.  Stein writes a humorous (funny) column or article that appears on the last page of the magazine.  In a recent issue (individual copy of the magazine), he decided to compile his own list:  The 100 Least Influential People of 2010.  This list is divided into (separated into) four categories:  Losers, Flameouts, Morons, and Slimy Bastards.  These are all informal terms and insults for people who are undesirable, or that are unpleasant or unwanted, or simply people you don’t want to know or to be friends with.

A loser is someone who is not successful in life and often fails at what he or she tries to do. To flame out is an informal phrase meaning to fail in a very conspicuous (easy to see; seen by many people) way.  We usually describe someone as flaming out if that person has tried to do something difficult or very public and failed miserably (very badly).  For example, if I decide to run for (try to get elected as) governor of California and I don’t get even one vote, I have flamed out.  On this list, Stein uses “flameout” as a noun to describe someone who has failed miserably in a public way.

Moron is a very insulting term for a very stupid person.  It is similar to idiot, but is even stronger and describes someone who is very, very stupid.  On Stein’s list are several famous people from reality shows that he thinks are morons.

The last category is Slimy Bastard.  The dictionary meaning of bastard is a male child who is born to an unmarried mother.  This is an old-fashion usage of this term and it isn’t used this way very often anymore.  Instead, we use bastard as a synonym for jerk, someone who does bad things to other people and who deserves to be hated. Bastard is stronger than jerk, so people usually use it when they are very angry.  We use “bastard” for men and almost never for women, even though Stein has a few women on his list.

We describe someone as slimy when that person does dishonest, immoral (wrong) things, especially if he is obsequious, acting like a servant to other people hoping to gain some benefit from that person.  So, a slimy bastard is a person who does bad things in a dishonest way, but always hoping to gain something for himself or herself.  For instance, someone who offers to wash your car and then later you find out that he drove your car around town, telling other people it belongs to him, can be described as a slimy bastard.

You may now know a few more commonly-used insults for unlikeable people, but I would suggest that you use these judiciously (wisely; sensibly) if you want to keep your good looks (handsome or beautiful face) and your front teeth.

~ Lucy

Battle Over Bailouts Shifts Oversight Debate

The blog post is about one of the most controversial issues currently in U.S. politics: how the federal (national) government should regulate (have rules for) our financial institutions, such as banks, stock market investment firms, and other similar companies.  As many of you may know, during the economic crisis in the United States in 2008-2009, the U.S. government spent billions of dollars to help save banks that had lost a lot of money because of, among (in addition to) other things, the declining price of houses in the U.S.  Now, almost two years later, the federal government is investigating how to prevent another financial disaster involving these banks from happening again.

The headline begins with the phrase battle over, which means a fight or a violent argument over (about) something.  Normally we use the word battle to describe events in a war, but the word can also be used more generally to indicate a large or major disagreement.  This battle or fight is over bailouts.  To bail out a company means, in this case, to give it money when its business is in serious trouble, when it needs money to continue.  The word can also be a noun to describe the money given to the failing company.  The U.S. government has given bailouts to several banks over the past few years.  Many people were angry that public money was used to help these private banks, and the government’s action is now very unpopular (disliked by many people).

To shift means to focus attention from one thing to another, or to move from one position to another.  Here the fight over whether banks should continue to get bailouts has changed or shifted the focus of people’s attention from the more general discussion of oversight of financial institutions.  Oversight is when a person or group monitors (looks at; follows) and controls what a group of other people or groups are doing.  The person who is overseeing (the verb for oversight) is not actually in charge of or running the other group; he or she is just making sure it does things according to the rules and regulations.  A debate is a discussion by two or more people who have different views about some important topic, usually done in public in front of a group of people watching.  More generally, it can also mean a disagreement about some political issue.

So what does it all mean?  The government was trying to put new regulations in place (in effect) for banks that would give the government oversight over how these banks operated.  But now the focus of the discussion has shifted to talking about whether the banks should receive bailouts, not about how they should be regulated and controlled.  The original focus of the debate was about oversight, and now it is about bailouts.

~Jeff

The key to (solution, main point of) this finding can be found in evolutionary psychology.  Evolutionary refers to the process by which life forms (such as animals and humans) on earth change or “evolve” slowly over time, a theory proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century.  Part of the theory of evolution says that organisms (life forms) that are better adapted (better matched, more suited) to their environment are better able to survive and therefore to have descendents (children, offspring).  Over many thousands (and perhaps millions) of years, organisms that have the characteristics and qualities that are the best “fit” for their environment will be the ones that survive.  Evolutionary psychology tries to explain the way people act today by looking at the characteristics of those actions which might have contributed (helped) in the past to the survival of the human race (human beings).

There can be no future for any organism that does not reproduce — that is, have children.  But men and women have significant differences when it comes to (related to) reproduction.  A man can have several sexual partners each year, and with each partner (woman, in this case) have a child.  In other words, he can have as many children as he has sexual partners.  A woman, however, can only have one child (excluding twins for the moment) every nine months, regardless of how many sexual partners she has had.  A woman therefore has a strong motivation (a good reason) to be much more selective, much more careful about choosing her sexual partners if she wants the father of her children to help support and protect her and her offspring.  It is in a woman’s best interest (beneficial or advantageous to her) to find a high-quality sexual partner who will be a good father to her children.  While modern society has attempted to separate the sexual act from procreation (having children), evolutionary psychology shows that women (and men) are still guided today by these basic instincts or tendencies that we have inherited from our ancestors (our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.).

So what does the health of a society have to do with all of this?  The answer is found in the hormone (certain chemicals that regulate your body’s activities) testosterone.  More masculine-looking men tend to have more testosterone, and are often in better physical shape, look more healthy, are more fertile (able to produce more children), and are perceived as being “stronger” than men with less testosterone.  If you are woman living in a society where illness and disease are common (that is, a less healthy society), physical health is an important part of your survival.  You will want to find a man who you believe is himself very physically healthy, who won’t easily get sick, and who will thus (therefore) be able to protect you and your children.

High levels of testosterone can have some negative effects as well, however.  Men with high levels of testosterone are more likely to be aggressive and unfaithful (have sex with someone other than his or her husband/wife/partner).  The more “manly” man is more likely to get divorced, have problems in his marriage, be less interested in parenting (taking care of the children), and be physically abusive to (hit or harm) his wife.  (Of course, these are just generalizations, and it does not mean that all men with high testosterone are unfaithful and hit their wives.)  In healthier societies, where physical health is not as important for survival, women are more likely to be attracted to the more feminine-looking men, who are generally kinder, more faithful, and more interested in being a father.  These women thereby (by doing that) avoid the negative aspects that come with being with men who have high testosterone levels.

Countries that are considered to be on average the healthiest by the World Health Organization, such as Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Austria, are more likely to have women who will choose the more feminine-looking men for a husband or partner.  The United States is one of the least healthy countries, and women here tend to prefer the more masculine-looking men.  Based on this information, we can presume (guess, assume to be true) that if Obama’s healthcare plan is successful in making Americans healthier, women will start preferring more feminine-looking men — that is, girlie men!

One potential problem in this study is that some countries have a wide disparity (difference) in their population when it comes to how healthy the environments are in which people live.  The United States has some very rich areas, but it also has many very poor areas.  It is possible, then, that the “average” level of healthiness is not a very good indication of what a “typical” American woman might prefer in a man.  It may be, for example, that women from richer, healthier places in the U.S. prefer more feminine-looking men, and those in the poorer, less healthy areas prefer more masculine-looking men.  The study did not look at this issue.

~Jeff

The research, which was recently reported in the Wall Street Journal, comes from an experiment at Faceresearch.org, an online project of the University of Aberdeen in Scotland.  In the experiment, nearly 5,000 women in their early to mid-20s (20 to 26, approximately) from all over the world were shown 20 pairs of men’s faces.  For each pair (each two), the women selected the picture of the man they found most attractive.  But the pairs did not show two different men but rather the same man’s face that was digitally altered (changed using computer software) to look either very masculine (manly, like a man) or more feminine (womanly, like a woman).  A more masculine face had slightly thinner (skinnier) lips, eyes that were farther apart, and/or thicker (heavier, with more hair) eyebrows (the line of hair on your face above your eyes).  The more feminine faces had slightly rounder eyes and a narrower jaw (the V-shaped, bottom part of your face that controls the lower part of your mouth).  In addition to recording the women’s preferences, the experiment also determined where the women were from by using their Internet IP address.  Your IP address is sort of your specific address on the Internet and can be used to identify your location.  The women were then grouped together by country and the “National Health Index” from the World Health Organization was calculated for each country.  The National Health Index is an indication of how healthy on average people are in different countries throughout the world.  (The “on average” part is especially important, as we’ll see in Part 2 of this post.)

After crunching the data (doing the statistical, numerical calculations), the researchers found that women from healthier countries tended to prefer the more feminine-looking men, while those from the least healthy countries preferred men who looked more masculine.

In order to control for (to eliminate the effects of, the possible bias due to) skin color and racial preferences, only white women were used in this experiment, looking at pictures of white men.  It is not clear what the results would be if they had included men and women of different races and skin colors.  However, the results are still very interesting and lead us to ask the question: Why would women from healthier countries prefer, well, girlie-looking men?  The researchers presented some possible theories, along with additional information about how a woman chooses the man she wants to have a romantic relationship with.

In Part 2 of this post, I’ll tell you what the researchers’ theories were and how all of this relates to President Obama’s health care plan which was approved recently here in the United States.  But I’ll first let some of you give your theories, and it would be good to hear from both men and women!  I’ve also put a sample pair of men’s faces below so you can see what the women were looking at; the photo on the left side of the screen is the more masculine one.

~Jeff

Photo Credit: The Royal Society

“Obama Calls for ‘Up or Down Vote’ on Health Care Bill”

President Obama announced yesterday that he wants the U.S. Congress (our national legislature, consisting of Senators and Representatives) to have an “up or down vote” on health care.  To vote means to say yes or no about some issue in an election or group decision.  A bill is a proposal for a law that needs to be approved by the two houses or parts of Congress, the Senate (100 people) and the House of Representatives (435 people), and then signed by the president to become a law.  For most things, a simple majority (50% + 1) is enough to pass or approve a bill.  But in the U.S. Senate, there is a way to prevent a vote on any bill by, basically, refusing to stop talking.  This procedure, known as a filibuster, can only be stopped by a super-majority (more than 50% + 1) of 60%.

President Obama is asking the Congress (specifically, the Senate) to avoid any filibusters and simply vote on the proposed bill for health care (taking care of people who are sick).   This is what he means by an up and down vote – no filibusters, just a simple majority vote of yes (“up”) or no (“down”).  While the president’s political party, the Democrats, has a simple majority in both houses of Congress, it does not have a super-majority in the Senate, so it cannot stop the opposing party, the Republicans, from filibustering.  Hence (therefore), the president is asking Republicans to stop preventing a vote on the bill.  If he can do that, the bill has a much better chance of passing.

Unfortunately for the president, the majority of Americans are not in favor of the current health care bill, and many of the Democrats in his own party are afraid to vote for a bill that has become so unpopular, largely due to (because of) the high cost of it.  We’ll have to see if the Senate Republicans take the president’s suggestion to, well, shut up and let the vote proceed (take place, happen).  Even if they do, it is still possible that the bill will fail to pass with a simple majority.

~Jeff

P.S. Feel free to comment on whether you think this sort of blog post – about headlines – is useful.

Perhaps next time they’ll have a sport I can participate in…like watching the Olympics on TV.

~Jeff