For those of us who are single...

  You don't need a significant other to be complete.
  You guys probably have heard the sayings before.
  "He/She is my other half."
  "He/She completes me."
  I reject those notions, and you should too.
  Because you, as yourself, by yourself, ARE COMPLETE.
  Finding a partner that brings you joy should be like discovering the combination of French fries and McFlurries. Before that landmark, you were perfectly fine with having just one or the other, and you thought they were magnificent by themselves. The combination didn't make one or the other better; rather it created an entirely new wonderful entity. But if the cashier says, "Sorry our McFlurry machine is down", you aren't gonna be like 'My fries just aren't complete without a McFlurry'. You may be like 'Darn' for a moment or two, but you're probably still going to get those fries, and still going to enjoy them like you did before you found that heart attack-enducing combination.
  My point is, YOU are the main course. You are the ice cream sundae AND the cherry on top. You, as yourself, by yourself, are complete, and don't ever forget that.

Has Donald Trump Revealed His Next Political Platform?!?!?! (News Spoof)

  In the GOP presidential debate on Thursday nigh on Fox News, we heard presidential candidate Donald Trump condemn political-correctness in our nation, which was in response to a question posed to him regarding his history of making inappropriate and nasty comments towards women.
  And to uphold this history, Trump went on to say the following day that the debate host that gave him this question, who happened to be a woman, had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her--wherever".
  Although many are focusing on the offensive connotation of these words, could the attention regarding his words be misplaced entirely?
  An unknown source who says to be "working closely with the Trump campaign" claims this to be the case.
  This source say that the true intention of this statement was to drop a hint about what Trump will be unveiling as his next agenda as the leader in the polls among all the Republican presidential candidates.
  "We've seen Trump launch his war on political-correctness," the source tells our team, "but Trump is letting us in on his next big thing: and that's his war on political correctness regarding our anatomy."
  That's right. This source is claiming that Trump's words were very strategic. Rather than using the word 'vagina', which we all know to be the place from where women bleed during menstraution, he used the word 'wherever'. And this apparently is supposed to be the beginning of his fight to end the use of politically-correct terms to refer to parts of the human anatomy.
  According to the anonymous source, we should look forward to Trump substituting 'penis' for 'foo-hickey', 'testicles' for 'jingle bells', and 'breasts' for 'boobies', 'flappy things', and 'human utters'.
  And apparently, it won't end there. This source tells us that the end goal is to completely uproot political correctness regarding our anatomy. And that means targeting the place where these politically-correct terms are used the most--and that's in the medical field.
  "Donald Trump wants our surgeons to not be constricted by political-correctness," the source added. "And that means having them refer to vital organs as 'what-cha-ma-call-its' rather than their politically-prescribed names. Because it will just make everybody more comfortable."
  Our team began to reached out to Donald Trump to validate these statements, but decided to put our energy towards more pressing world matters.
  We will be sure to update you on all the latest on this issue.

2016 Presidential Election: Is The American Presidency Turning Into A Joke???

    We hear it all the time: that the President of the United States of America is "the most powerful man in the world" (at least you do if you watch Scandal...).
   But if you ask me, these days, we Americans are beginning to undermine the importance of that position. And this is truly being shown through the fuss surrounding the 2016 Presidential Election.

  Don't believe me? Let's review.
  We have Donald Trump, well-known millionaire, businessman, and television personality, currently running for president.
  We have Ben Carson, retired surgeon, also running as a presidential candidate as a Republican.
  We even have heard Waka Flocka Flame, rapper, announce his intention to join the in the running for the 2016 presidential seat back in April.

  Now let's take a look at their political backgrounds.
  *crickets sounding*
  That's right, folks; we have people with no background of serving on any level of government claiming that they are the most qualified to lead our nation.
  I can't be the only one who sees the problem with this.

  I think that it is generally understood that politics is really a "work your way up" kind of deal. And connections and money can really only get you so far in American politics; because at the end of the day, if you aren't getting done what the people want, our lovely democracy system gives the people the leverage to vote them out of office.
  This being said, I think that it is nothing less than an insult to those candidates who have served their time and proven their dedication to serving this nation for these randoms to claim that they are best-suited to run the country. I don't care how much money you have, how charismatic people say you are, how many platinum records you have--politics isn't something that anyone can do. It's not something you just get up one day and say "Well, I have conquered fame and money--let's check 'politician' off the list today!". Everyone thinks that politics is easy...it's not. (There's a reason why the presidents age decades during their time in office.) I am just absolutely uncomfortable with people who have little-to-no experience serving the country as a politician trying to take on the large responsibility of being the President of the United States.


 Furthermore, what really makes my blood boil, is the coincidental timing of such outrageous presidential biddings: right after our country has witnessed its first black president. I don't know about you, but to me, it seems as if for that reason, people are making a mockery out of the American presidency. It's like they're saying "hey; if a black man can be president, then anyone can". And that "anyone can" isn't the kind that means 'it doesn't matter about your social class or ethnic background'. No, that "anyone can" is the demeaning kind; the kind that implies that any uneducated busboy can waltz into the Oval Office and lead an entire nation. It's like people are forgetting that that "black man" is a Harvard Law School graduate, as well as served on the Senate on state and national levels, and is, in fact, a biracial man.


  Besides my own personal issues with this, I feel that the spectacle that some of these candidates are creating actually puts our nation in a dangerous position on the global stage.
  It's no question that America is a global superpower. So I want you to think about the other global superpowers--China, Russia, England; just to name a few--and consider for a moment, whether or not it would be appropriate for people to just rise out of the blue to challenge the nation's highest chair in their political structure. Would such a thing even fly in these other countries?
  I get the idea that anyone can pose themselves as a candidate for the Presidental seat under our political structure, especially if they have the votes to back them up. But it seems like some of these candidates are more focused on getting everyone riled up and pushing their own personal agendas, than really getting things done to excel our nation.
  And yeah, it's all fun and games for national media sources. The media is having a ball following Donald Trump around to hear what he'll say next. But take a moment to think: how does all of this make American look to the rest of the world? Does creating drama within political parties, as well as having prominent bipartisan issues, really make us look like the strong, united nation that we need to be in order to maintain our position of power and safety in the global theater?
  (In a society where we preach that how others view you isn't important, I need to emphasize that politics works in the exact opposite manner: HOW OTHERS VIEW YOU IS VERY IMPORTANT. Because if Russia starts thinking, 'Hm, looks like the US's executive branch is gonna become a joke soon', that's something that you really want to worry about.)

  To me, this is a pretty interesting phenomenon. I could be mistaken, but I believe this is the first time our country has ever seen such a thing (or, such "diversity in qualifications", as I have heard some refer to it as).
  I'm very interested on hearing others' thoughts about this, so feel free to comment your opinions!

  Thanks for reading.

My Take on the "New American Flag"

   This year's US Independence season came right on the heels of some pretty iconic things in our country on the political stage: the uproar of demands for removal of the Confederate flag from government buildings, and the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states.
  Considering these two things, something interesting sprung up on the internet: a petition for a "new American flag", which was basically just the LGBTQ flag with 50 white stars arranged against a blue background in the top left corner.
  Let me be clear: this was not a real thing. At all. The whole thing came from a combination of random things: Marc Dice, a "media analyst" (I put that in quotes because my source referred to him as a conspiracy theorist...not sure which one is more accurate), created a video of him asking people on the street to sign a petition to replace the American flag with a different one. Following this, a fake news site released an article saying that a petition to change the American flag to a rainbow flag was in circulation, and had gained more than 10,000 signatures.
  Again: This was not a legit thing.
  But I think it's a fun idea for me to entertain and share my views on, especially since many Americans did just that, so let's begin.


  While on the streets of San Diego, Dice used the idea that the some find the American flag to be "offensive" in his pitch to get people to sign it.
  So for a moment, I want to talk about what two iconic flags, the Confederate flag and the US flag, represent, and how the intent or perception of offense differs for each of them.
  To me, the Confederate flag was, and is, meant to offend. Politically speaking, it was made to represent the states who were threatening secession from the United States of America. Thus, the "stars and bars" were made and flown in order to offend not only the Union, but the United States of America, and all who supported the prohibition of slavery.
  But at the crux of it, the Confederate flag is offensive because (to me) it is scary. Because it represents a group in the past who supported the expansion of slavery, and even went as far as war in order to deny blacks the full rights of US citizenship. So to me, as a black individual, seeing the Confederate flag flying anywhere strikes genuine fear in my heart, because it is a symbol that tells me that I do not belong, and I do not deserve the same rights as an American-born white male. To me, seeing the Confederate flag being flown is the modern-day equivalent of tying a noose in someone's front yard.
  That's why the Confederate flag is offensive.
  The American flag, on the other hand, with it's 50 white stars and 13 red and white horizontal stripes, represents... America. That's it. And what's so special about that is that America represents SO MANY things. It represents freedom of speech and freedom of religion; it represents our nation's military, and it even represents a nation that just legalized same-sex marriage in all of its states.
And changing the flag to be a near-replica of the LGBTQ flag strips away all that the American flag represents, and makes it represent a singular cause. And to me, that's wrong, because it takes away from our nation's rich history and morals that we as Americans value to deeply.
  (Now, don't get me wrong. This same flag also represents a nation where women receive lower wages as a man for the same work, where racism is still a huge issue, and a nation where less than a month ago some people were prevented from marrying the person of their choice... Our nation has tons of flaws, and our flag is representative of them too. However, changing the flag presents no solvency for any of these issues.)
  And you know, maybe there is someone out there who finds the American flag offensive. But you know the difference? What it represents. Because what each flag represents shows the true intentions behind the flag. So to compare what the Confederate flag represents with what the American flag represents, and say that they are both equally offensive, is gravely ignorant.

  If you watch the video, you'll also hear that part of Dice's pitch talks about the petition's goal to issue "a new world order". Which to me, is a pretty laughable, honestly.
  Alright, so gay rights is an international issue, and is important. 100% true.
  But we need to be realistic and see that it's not an issue that dictates the world.
  You wanna talk about "new world order"? Let's talk about ending wars. Let's talk about resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict for good. Let's talk about curbing global climate change, ending female genital mutilation, and decreasing poverty.
  YES, gay rights is an important issue, but if some Americans believe that "a new world order" is to be established through this flag change, they are unfortunately very narrow-minded, and extremely ignorant.


  Obviously, this thing was just a gag and would probably never really pass in our red (VERY red), white and blue nation. But it definitely provokes some interesting thought. I mean, many people on the streets were on board with the proposal, and thought it was a good idea. Does that show that our nation is more socially evolved and accepting? Or does it show that we have become a bit too high-strung, trying to find offense in everything and constantly chasing after social movements to align ourselves behind, no matter how ridiculous?

  That's about it from me. I would love to hear your thoughts, so don't forget to comment!

Recognizing The Narrative Surrounding Women

  Wow... Really, SHAME ON ME.
  I have been lazy about updating, and that I apologize for.
  But trust me when I say I will be better about it during these summer months! I have so much unpublished material that I am really going to focus on finishing and getting out to you guys. (:

  But on to today's topic...
 
  I don't think it's any secret where I stand on the feminist's movement. I am an advocate of women's rights and gender equality and just equality in general. So yes, I am a feminist.
  However, I don't think it's any secret either that I put most of my energy into environmental causes.
  To put it in perspective, if there were a week-long fest of environmentalist and feminist events/rallies, I would probably dedicate 6 of those days to the environmentalist movement, and one of them to the feminist movement.

  My point of starting of by mentioning this was to just say that I have not spent significant amounts of time on the feminist movement. And I'm not one who is overly-sensitive or nitpicks over ever little patriarchal aspect of society.
  However, I have been able to notice subtle things regarding how women are spoken (or not spoken) about that have made me look around and go "Am I the only one who noticed that...?" And it's interesting, because I am the only one who notices it--because these things are just embedded so deep into society that it seems almost normal for us to think that way. And really, that's the most harmful part.

  I'll mention just a couple examples.

-Since I've been home, I have come across this television show called 'Celebrity Wife Swap'--a show that has been around since I was a child, with a slight twist put on it by starring individuals who have acquired some amount of fame at some point in their lifetime. Usually, the marriage situation in each household was made up of the husband, who was the celebrity, and the wife, who was...well, the wife. (Which is one problem in itself, if you ask me, but that's not my main issue.) When the "wife swap" occurred, and the families were meeting their replacement wives for the first time, the question was always the same: "Whose wife are you?"
Notice the phrasing of the statement. They don't say, "Who are you married to?"
In theory, both statements express the same idea, but the connotation behind them are quite different. The concept of "marriage" usually implies a mutual agreement between two equal individuals formed on the basis of love and commitment. However, being "someone's wife" has a more possessive undertone to it. Not only that, but it makes it seem that the worth of the husband is, in some sense, greater than that of the wife (never-minding the fact that one of the wives was a successful lawyer and business owner, arguably possessing more talent and financial stability than her "celebrity" husband, who played football for a living).
It was just interesting for me to see that in each episode, the default was to have the women be described as a mere possession of their husbands.
(Don't get me wrong; we could go on all day about how this gender inequality is built-into the show, since it's called "Wife Swap", and yada yada yada... But it was just specifically this narrative that was casually used that I found to be interesting.)

-At school, I am on the Speech and Debate team. And as you would imagine, many of our practice sessions consist of debate rounds. Sometimes these rounds are judged by qualified judges, but sometimes when running low on trained judges, we just use other debaters in place. This was the situation at one practice, and I was one of those placed at the judge's table. There were initially four of us, but two of them had to leave halfway through the debate. Coincidentally, the two that left were the trained judges. So that left me and another guy to provide the verdict at the end of the round.
In order for you to understand the situation, I have to provide some brief background on debate etiquette. Although there are usually more than one judge at the judging table, one judge is named as the 'chair'. From what I can tell, this judge is usually the one with the most experience at the table. This is the judge that is directly addressed throughout the debate, often as "Mister Speaker" or "Madame Speaker" (however, there has been a push recently to use more gender-neutral titles, like "Honorable Chair" or "Most Esteemed Chair"; I have been judged by one who wanted to be referred to as "Dopest Speaker").
Now back to the situation. The boy and I both were in the same boat as far as experience: we were both novice (first-year) debater and both had never judged a debate before.
However, three-quarters through the debate, I couldn't help but noticed that the debaters had subconsciously designated my co-judge as the chair of the table, referring to him as "Mister Speaker".
It wasn't something I was angry or bitter about; it was honestly interesting to me. At the end of the debate I pointed this out to the debaters, whom (all of them male) quickly responded by saying they thought he was the chair because I was last-minute assigned to judge that room, while he was initially put at the room's judge.
I'm sure that they felt bad and were scrambling for any excuse it, because their assumption was sexist (and their excuse didn't really make much sense either, since being chair is never based on who gets assigned to a room first). But I wasn't out to make anyone feel bad. I just really thought it was interesting. Because that was a prime example of a male outranking a female merely because he is a male--and no one noticed it, because it just seemed normal to make that incorrect assumption.


  Do you notice what I'm getting at?
  I'm not setting any cities on fire because of these incidents. Because I know that this social mindset isn't simply because of a few ignorant individuals, but is the result of a mindset that has been perpetuated through time. The first step to changing this narrative is recognizing that it is engrained in our culture, and in order to change it, we literally have to change our culture. These days, people who don't think about this are so quick to get offended that they actually end up doing more harm than good for their cause.
  I'm not asking you to dedicate your entire self to the feminist movement; I have by no means done so. But I am asking you to just take a moment to look around and notice these subtleties. That's how we as a society can begin to change. And realize that this kind of change doesn't just come overnight. Although that change seems radical and scary, we may very well see ourselves come out as a better species altogether on the other side of this movement.

Thanks for reading.

It's College Decision Season...

  For high school seniors, it has reached that dreaded point of the school year where college decisions have started being released. Being that it has been right around one year since I was in the same predicament, I figured that it would be appropriate to discuss some things I think are important to remember, as well as share the things that I myself learned during my experience.

  I think that the first thing that anyone entering this process has to develop is "tough skin". What do I mean by that? You have to be able to roll with the punches. Rejections are going to come your way, and no one ever wants to be told 'no', but it happens. The best thing to do is to learn how to take things in stride, so that you're not a hysterical mess when the rejection letters come.
  As far as my personal experience, I received A LOT of rejection letters. That's mainly because I applied to 17 schools, though. (ALERT. ALERT. DO NOT DO WHAT I DID. I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT AT ALL. DO NOT APPLY TO 17 SCHOOLS.) Luckily, I was not too phased by it, because I didn't have much of a preference for which school I wanted to go to in the first place.
  As far as expectations... I recommend that everyone go into the college admission process with fair thinking and a level head. Weigh your options, and realistically consider your chances for getting into realistic school. Don't hype yourself up, but don't sell yourself short either. I mean...look at me.
  I think it is MOST IMPORTANT that students realize that this process isn't something that necessarily determines the fate of rest of their life, nor their wealth. No admissions board will be able to see you for the person that you truly are. That being said, standardized test scores, personal essays and teacher recommendations DO NOT represent who you are. I have seen too many students get depressed because they don't think their SAT score is "good enough", or because they got rejected from a particular school. It is key to realize that a) SAT scores LITERALLY REPRESENT NOTHING in the real world, and b) being rejected from a school is not the end of the world. I have to tell people all the time: there is no one path to get to where you want to go. You don't have to go to an Ivy League school to be successful in the industry of your choice, and you don't have to be picture-perfect on a resume to land your dream job. (And let's be honest; those are usually the ones that have the personality of a cardboard box.) As long as you have a goal and are serious about accomplishing it, you can get there any way you desire.
  My biggest advice to high school seniors?: Lighten up. This applies especially to the ones who are tied for the number one ranking in their class, or pushing their GPA up to a 4.50. SERIOUSLY. LIGHTEN UP. Don't take life too seriously. If you do, it'll be hard to accept things as they are in college, and, moving forward, life in general. Trust me, I'm not speaking from the outside looking in. I used to be that kid who cried rivers when I got a 95 instead of 100% on an assignment. I was lucky enough to learn to not be so hard on myself in my latter years of high school. I run into these kids all the time: they cruised through high school, and now that school is hard and they aren't getting straight A's, they basically face a mental meltdown. It is something that takes time to develop, and it absolutely pays off to be more relaxed about life before it starts getting more real.

  Honestly, guys, don't worry too much. You've done your part; the rest is out of your control, so there's no use in losing much sleep over it. At the end of the day, YOU are not defined by any electronic application or acceptance/rejection letter. So smile, and enjoy the last months of high school that you have left. (:

From the Mind of a Writer, To the Public....

  And by public, I guess I'm mostly referring to the poor souls who are sitting in classes that force them to read different content and analyze the heck out of them.
  Because I (and not for the first time in my life) am currently in one of those courses.
  And I find myself to be in a very interesting situation. Not only am I a mature adult, but I also am an avid writer, and do consider myself to be an author. (For those who don't know, I am big on writing: all throughout this blog, you can read different short stories that I have written, and I am also currently working on completing and publishing my first book!)
  So really, whenever I pick up a work of literature, I wear two hats: a reader who is a part of the audience, and an author, who has pulled a chair up next to the work's author, shared a few beers with, and written the story.
  That's really how I read things.
  Now, technically, I have only been writing and working on improving my art for a little over a decade now. But because I'm a serious writer, there are some things I notice when my classes are analyzing works that kind of make me chuckle a little.

  Now, of course, there are some author's who have works of literature that are extremely dense, with numerous different implications and meanings that are hidden behind each word.
  But rest assure, sometimes, a lot of writing is nowhere near as deep or complicated as people try to make it.

  Some works of literature are obviously deep. One I can think of is 'The Awakening' by Kate Chopin. Her novel makes a lot of vague comparisons, and has an underlying meaning in reference to the relation between women and society during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Another is titled 'Clash of Civilizations Over An Elevator in Piazza Vittorio', which touched on ethnic and racial tensions in Italy. These books not only have deep meanings, but they can be analyzed pretty deeply. My favorite part about the is that they both implicitly touch on big, controversial issues. (Because you know me; I just LOVE controversial issues :D)
  However, even these have a limit to them. Meaning, YES, there is a way to over-analyze things.
  And my justification for saying this isn't because I'm lazy and tired of trying to think of deeper meaning behind things. It's because I am a writer, and I know that when I write, things just...happen. It's not all the time that I put a hidden meaning in the word, or write things in ways to elude to some great big idea. When I write 'She scratched her back vigorously', you shouldn't necessary think 'Oh, she had a deprived childhood where her mother didn't believe that fingernails were sanitary and would always cut them very low, so now as an adult she was lashing out in a defiant way by scratching her back with her now-grown fingernails.' ...sometimes (and USUALLY), it just means that her back itched...a lot.
  One of such works I can think of off the top of my head that this is often done with is Robert Frost's 'Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening'. I mean, yes, he uses different literally devices to create the mood for the poem... But a class shouldn't spend four days analyzing this work. There is no hidden murder plot in the poem. Have you ever just though he wrote it without really attempting to hide things in it...? Because that's what I think...
  Another funny example for me are literary works written by Edgar Allen Poe. Most of his works definitely do have interesting plots that are worth exploring, but I honestly doubt that he intentionally wrote endless loopholes into his works that were meant to stump people for years.
 
  Now, does this mean that I hate analyzing literature? NO! I enjoy analyzing literature, and encourage people to analyze my own works as well.
  I think I mainly just dislike line-by-line analysis. In my opinion, if one is analying your work with this method, either the person doing the analyzing is approaching the work incorrectly, or it is not a well-written piece of work. (There can obviously be an exception for poetry.)
  To me, the more effective way to analyze would be starting with large ideas, then connecting them to the story through examples from the text. It is much less boring, and more likely to invoke good and genuine conversation about what's going on in the text.

  But at the end of the day, my biggest though when sitting in class is this: "Hell, if after I die, people are analysis my works the way we are doing now, I would be pretty damn satisfied."

Thanks for reading.

Response to: BuzzFeed Article title

  I'm really going to keep this one short.
  And DISCLAIMER: I am most probably about to offend a good portion of you all.

  I was just on Facebook, scrolling my life away, when I came across a BuzzFeed article that someone shared. It was titled 'A Third Of Male Students In A New Study Say They'd Rape Women If There Were No Consequences'.
  And, just like many others, when I read that, I was like 'Woah, woah, woah...WHAT?!'
  However, before I even clicked on the link to read the article, I sat there for a moment and thought.
  And I realized: Ohkay. This statement really isn't surprising, and it honestly doesn't prove or disprove anything, in my opinion.
  Let me elaborate a bit.
  We cannot pretend like the only place where humans are morally-flawed lies within sexual assault scenarios. Beyond that, this idea of 'no consequences' could be applied to any situation, and probably would earn similar, if not higher statistics.
  For example: If you could take all of the money from the vault of a bank "if nobody would ever know and there wouldn't be any consequences" (using the words from the study), would you do it?
  Some of you may think, 'Oh, no, never; that's other people's money, and that's wrong'. But, rest assured, some of you are probably like, 'HELL YEAH I WOULD'.
  Here's a more relevant example: If you could buy/sell/ingest marijuana under the same circumstances as above, would you do it?
  In some states, it's the consequences and social stigmas that bar many from engaging in activities with marijuana. But in places like Colorado and Oregon, we can clearly see how the stripping of consequences for recreational use of weed has increased the desire and willingness for residents and visitors alike to light one up without a second thought.

  In a sense, I get what the study was trying to do with that particular statistic: bring awareness to men's disregard for the safety, choice and well-being of women, mainly surrounding sex. However, if you as me, the 'no consequences' scenarios shouldn't be used to single out men as horrible immoral creatures. It's more of a human flaw, because if you give a person the option to do something, and tell them that there would be no consequences for it, many would do it, even if it was morally wrong.

  Let me be clear, though: I didn't read the study. And I don't know about the other aspects of it. Hence, I'm not at the liberty to comment on that. My comments are solely geared towards the particular statistic I talked about, and the way that the particular BuzzFeed article presented it.
(You can read it here.)

Thanks for reading.

How To Be "Smart"

  Being at home has given me the chance to watch television again.
  Which, honestly, I'm not entirely sure if that is a good or bad thing, considering all of the crap that makes it onto national television these days.
  There are A LOT of things that stand out to me (and not in a good way). But here, I'm only going to skim the tip of the iceberg.
  I was watching the Lifetime channel, when a commercial for a new show called 'Child Genius' came on. This particular commercial advertised a child spelling a very long word.
  And maybe you may look at that and think, 'Wow. That kid's so smart. Look at that huge word she spelled!'
  However, it is CRUCIAL that one takes a moment to realize: the spelling of that word isn't a knowledge that she was born with. She had to memorize it.

  So today, I want to talk about the misunderstanding and improper hype that surrounds the word "smart".
  This is a word that I have personally been using less and less in my daily vocabulary. And that is because it is such a subjective, one-sided word. I know too many people who attach the embodiment of this word to grades and SAT scores. I, however, have come to see that there is more to one's intelligence than just numbers on a piece of paper.
  Obviously, I do believe that everyone has a different degree of intelligence. However, if there is one thing that I do NOT think accurately shows this degree, it is the SAT. Too many get caught up in the numbers, and think that only if they score above a 2000 will they be deemed mentally worthy. In my opinion, I don't believe that any standardized test is formatted to test people's intelligence in the way that they think it is. I mean, there are companies out there who profit from teaching students how to take these exams. If they were something that actually tested pure intelligence, there would be no need for such a thing. So essentially, this creates an atmosphere that if you can pay for all of the books and tutoring, you can buy your way to a perfect score. And I think we can all agree that that's not an accurate way to measure intelligence.
  It is also unfortunate that people fail to see how much diversity can exist in intelligence. There are more ways to be "smart" than by just getting all A's (and let's be realistic; now-a-days, getting all A's often times can't be considered a honest representation of a student's intelligence). To me, there are plenty of different ways a person can be intelligent: it can range from academically, by having a talent for mathematics and numbers, to artistically, and having a saavy for music notes or paintbrush strokes.
  We need to stop pushing these one-dimensional definitions of intelligence. Too many kids are deeming themselves "dumb" for arbitrary things, like not scoring a perfect score on a standardized exam, or not making straight As all the time. I know I was once a victim of this myself; I used to always think I was "stupid" if I couldn't make perfect scores all the time. We also need to stop glorifying memorized facts and and manufactured answers; because as cool as it may seem that you can list the names of all 43 individuals who served as presidents in the United States, these practiced answers aren't what help solve worldly issues, or contribute to the improvement of our societies.
  At the end of the day, "smartness" and "intelligence" are mostly subjunctive ideas. Everyone has a different idea of their different degrees. So rather than setting false and unreasonable standards of what it means to be "smart", why don't we instead encourage children to be the best them that they can be, by enhancing their talents and striving to show the best of their personalities?

  Thanks for reading.