5 useful higher-level English words

irreverent - not respectful, showing contempt toward someone or something
to dispel - to force something away, to get rid of something
to coax - to persuade through gentle means
to exasperate - to make a person very annoyed or angry (adj = to be exasperated)
zealous - very enthusiastic or aggressive about something, overly enthusiastic about something


I really didn't want to leave the house this weekend but my kids were able to ____________ me into taking them to the zoo.

Joe seemed to be a good employee during his first few weeks, but he has been making one mistake after another and this has started to _________________ me.

Satire is a type of literature in which an _______________ approach is taken toward some situation in order to make fun of the situation and to show that it is wrong.

The Tea Party - a new political party in America - has been accused of being too __________________ in regard to its attacks on President Obama and people of color in the USA.

Our boss held a special meeting to ____________ all the rumors that our company was going to be bought by a larger company.

answers are below:



answers:

coax
exasperate
irreverent
zealous
dispel

A Hero Takes A Fall: Lance Armstrong

The big news in the sporting world is that it looks as if everyone's suspicions about Lance Armstrong were correct.  Based on news reports, it seems he used performance-enhancing drugs in order to defeat other athletes in competition.

He gave an interview to the American TV host Oprah Winfrey and this interview will be broadcast on her cable chanel.  However, in the article below, you can see that she states he "didn't come clean" to the extent to which she had hoped he would.  To "come clean" means to honestly admit the truth about something you did which was wrong.

What is terrible about this situation is that Armstrong sued various people who had accused him of taking drugs and in almost every situation he won his lawsuit.  Now, it's Lance's turn to get sued.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/15/oprah-says-lance-armstrong-did-not-come-clean-like-thought-would/



1) Do you think all cyclists do this? Do you think all athletes do this?

2)  Have you lost faith in the integrity/honesty of cyclists because of this news?

3)  It seems that many baseball players have taken steroids.  Many could still be taking steroids.  Do you think that any sport is free from steroids?

4)  Can you watch athletic events anymore and enjoy them knowing that most, if not all, athletes are probably trying to cheat by using these drugs?

5)  Do you think that the international cycling organization referred to in this article helped Armstrong to cover up his drug usage?  Why or why not?

6)  When many athletes are accused of taking these drugs, they point out that they all passed the "drug tests" that were given to them.  What does this mean?

7)  Honestly, I stopped watching all sporting events years ago, except for the Soccer World Cup, because I honestly believe most athletes are taking drugs to cheat and unfairly win.  What do you think of my attitude?

8)  What can be done to stop the spread of steroids in sports?  Can anything be done?

----------------

Yes, I'm the guy who caused the "scandal" in Asia two years ago :P
http://www.shoutcastblog.com/2010/05/11/wondergirls-were-mistreated-by-jyp-entertainment/

Yes, I'm also the guy who wrote the very funny ESL book: New York City Sucks, But You'll Wanna Live Here Anyway
http://www.amazon.com/Sucks-Youll-Wanna-Anyway-ebook/dp/B004TSPAQS

Liberal Arts Colleges in America Are Dying

America has a slightly different system, in regard to higher education choices, than other countries.  Students may go to a "college" or a "university."  Also, there are a huge number of colleges and universities in the USA.

What's the difference between a college and a university?

Basically, a college provides Bachelors and Masters degrees but a student may receive a Bachelors, Masters and a PhD from a university.

America also has community colleges for students who may not be sure what they want to study or who struggled as students in high school. These community colleges only provide two years of study, at the most, but allow a student to transfer to a college or university.

Also (!) there are "liberal arts colleges" in America.  These are usually small colleges in rural (non-city) areas where the "liberal arts" are emphasized.  Students who go to a liberal arts college usually major in literature, philosophy, history, sociology etc.  In this article, it is pointed out that liberal arts colleges in America are dying because more students are becoming more practical - they want to study business-related subjects instead of subjects which might enrich their inner-lives.

http://news.yahoo.com/liberal-arts-colleges-forced-evolve-market-154449347.html

1)  How do you feel about the trend mentioned in the article?  Do you feel that students are neglecting
important subjects (like the arts) in order to make money?

2)  Do you think these schools should be compromising, or should they hold to the strong tradition of purely liberal arts classes?

3)  How do you feel about the emphasis on sports at American universities?  Many universities make a huge amount of money through (American) football and basketball programs.  Yet, football is a dangerous sport that causes physical harm and even brain damage to those who play it for too long.

Celebrity Hacker Will Go To Jail For 10 Years

Almost everyone has had the experience of being "hacked."  Some hackers try to obtain information which will allow them to steal money, some hackers invade another person's privacy in order to use his/her email for spam and other hackers want to harm innocent people.

In the following story we see that a hacker who broke into the email accounts of various celebrities will go to jail for 10 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/hollywood-hacker-sentenced-10-years-prison-211959427.html

 

1)  If this had happened to a non-celebrity, do you think this hacker would be going to jail?

 

2)  Do you believe there should be severe penalties for hacking?

3)  Why do you think this penalty was so severe? Do you think the judge was trying to deter others from hacking?

 

4)  What type of person do you think the typical hacker is?

5)  Some comments on some sites containing this story blamed the women for having naked photos on their computers.  Do you think this is na legitimate argument or do you think these people are blaming the victims?

 

6)  Why do you think people become hackers?

 

7)  Do you think that hackers will learn a lesson fron this and stop hacking, or will it be necessary for more hackers to be thrown in jail?

--------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, I'm the guy who caused the "scandal" in Asia two years ago :P http://www.shoutcastblog.com/2010/05/11/wondergirls-were-mistreated-by-jyp-entertainment/

Yes, I'm also the guy who wrote the very funny ESL book: New York City Sucks, But You'll Wanna Live Here Anyway http://www.amazon.com/Sucks-Youll-Wanna-Anyway-ebook/dp/B004TSPAQS

Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

In many American states, marijuana can be used for medical purposes.  Two American states recently held a vote about whether or not to legalize marijuana so that anyone over a certain age could smoke it for non-medical reasons, and the voters seemed to indicate that this would be acceptable.

Here is a brief article about the movement, in America, to legalize marijuana:

http://news.msn.com/us/poll-majority-of-americans-support-legalizing-marijuana

1)  How do you feel about the legalization of marijuana?

2)  Do you foresee any problems if marijuana is legalized?

3)  What is the attitude in your home country about marijuana?

4)  Would you ever try any, or have you ever tried any?

5)  Some people argue that if they are willing to use this drug individually and in their
own homes, there should not be a problem.  How do you feel about this?

Is The US Military Abusing The "WikiLeaks" Soldier?

A while ago a low-ranking US soldier took many secret documents and sent them to the website WikiLeaks to reveal what the US military was doing in its two foreign wars.

This soldier was arrested and is being held in a military prison until his trial.  His attorney claims that this young man is being abused by the US military.  The abuse includes keeping him naked and isolated in a prison cell 23 to 24 hours a day.

Here is an article about this: http://news.yahoo.com/counselor-mannings-history-showed-self-harm-risk-175239354.html

1)  Do you think this soldier was a hero or a villain?

2)  Do you feel that he is being abused by the US military?  The military claims that they took away his clothes to keep him from killing himself, but he claims he is being punished for not talking to prison authorities.

3)  Do you think the US government is justified in bringing him to trial for handing over the secrets to Wikileaks?  Do you think this soldier was trying to stop the wars or do you think he had other motives?  What do you think his ulterior (other, hidden) motives might have been?

4)  The United States would also like to put the founder of WikiLeaks on trial.  What do you think of this situation? 

Actress Attempts to Remove Hate-Filled Film from Youtube

The movie "Innocence of Muslims" became one of the most controversial films of the year when it caused protests in various Muslim countries.

One of the actresses in the film attempted to have the film removed from youtube because she said that the director lied to her about the nature of the film, and dubbed (replaced) new lines over the lines she spoke.  Therefore, she stated that her life was now in danger because it appears that she makes many statements attacking Islam.

Unfortunately, a judge refused to allow this film to be removed from youtube.

There are, of course, limits to "free speech."  A person cannot make deliberately false statements about another person or use speech to cause violence.  The judge, apparently, however, felt that the film was protected by the 1st Amendment.

Interestingly, President Obama asked that the film be removed from youtube even if it was protected by the right to freedom of speech.  It is up to each web site as to whether it allows "controversial" material, and most web sites will voluntarily remove hate-filled and malicious content for the good of the community.  Google (which owns youtube) refused to do this.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=777707

1)  Do you think that Google should have removed this video even if it is protected by the 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression? After all, the film is truly badly written, edited and directed and presents false and hate-filled messages about a religion.

2)  Do you think that Google is "required" somehow to present anything that anyone posts?  For instance, here's an analogy:  Let's say you own a bookstore and an author comes in and tries to encourage you to sell copies of his book which seems to be attacking a religion or religious figure in a hate-filled manner.  He assures you that the book is protected by the First Amendment and that many copies of the book can be sold.  Would you sell that type of book?

3)  Why do you think Google refused to remove the video even though the president of the US asked them to?  Some people feel that Google is more interested in profits than the 1st Amendment and does not want to spend money monitoring or policing or removing negative content from their search engine and youtube. For instance, an argument might be that it  might cost a great deal of money to hire an appropriate staff to remove "objectionable" content from the Google search engine and youtube.  Google may not want to spend this money.

4)  Do you think the actress was right to ask that the film be removed because it makes her seem anti-Islamic?

5)  Do you think the sometimes violent protests against this film were justified?

6)  Did you see the film?  What is your response to this film? If you did not see the film/video, why didn't you watch it?

Obese Woman Dies, Unable To Board Plane Home

A 400 lbs (182 kg) woman was able to fly via a Dutch airline to Hungary, from America, but several problems prevented 3 airlines from helping her fly back home.  Unable to fly home, she then died, and her husband is blaming the airlines for her death.  He seems to be arguing that had the airlines found a way home for her, her American doctors would have saved her.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/husband-obese-woman-blames-airlines-death-european-vacation/story?id=17812883

1)  Do you think the Dutch airline is to blame for this situation?  After all, they got her to Europe and were supposed to get her back home again.

2)  To what extent do you feel she is to blame for her excessive weight?

3)  Two other airlines attempted to help her get back home, but were unable to.  The husband wants to sue them as well.  Do you feel they are to blame?

4)  If you were on a jury for this case, would you find the airlines guilty or not guilty?

5)  Do you think that airlines should even accomodate passengers who are in such poor health and dangerously overweight?

Europe Considers Banning "Baby Boxes."

In New York City, each year many newly born babies used to be abandoned by their mothers in garbage containers, where the babies would die.  The police department, therefore, established a special program in which women can bring in their babies to any police department and leave the baby with the police, and the police will not ask any questions.

Because of this program, fewer babies have been found in garbage containers over the past few years and many babies have been handed over to the police.

In Germany a similar program was established through a hospital.  The hospital established a special, warm, safe structure in which a woman could place her unwanted baby.  Many baby's lives have been saved through this method.

However, a UN human rights organization is declaring this apparently humanitarian practice to be "wrong" and a violation of human rights.  Here is an article on this subject:

http://news.yahoo.com/europe-mulls-banning-boxes-abandoned-babies-075454911.html

1)  Do you think that by providing a baby box the German hospital is encouraging mothers to abandon their babies?  Or do you think they are encouraging women to save the lives of their babies?

2)  How do you feel about this issue?  Can you understand why new mothers might want to abandon their babies, or do you think this is a terrible practice?

3)  Ostensibly (on the surface) the baby box idea seems like a nice gesture.  Do you think they should stay or be removed?

The Great Depression and The Great Recession

Here's an interesting article I found online that compares and contrasts the Great Depression and the current Great Recession.  This might be of interest to various foreign learners of English who have heard about the Great Depression in America in the 1930s but who do not know much about it:

http://americawhatwentwrong.org/story/Now-and-then-is-the-recession-so-different/

Russia and the US Accuse Each Other of Human Rights Violations

The US Congress is considering a proposal to punish certain Russian officials who were involved in the death of a prominent Russian in a Russian prison. The Congress claims that Russia often violates human rights.

The Russian government, on the other hand, is accusing the US of also being a "human rights violator."  Russia has pointed out that the CIA tortured prisoners and that the US has an illegal prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Russia could also point out that the USA has a greater percentage of prisoners in its jails than any other country, and that most of these prisoners come from poor and minority backgrounds.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-threatens-tough-response-u-back-rights-bill-140111796.html;_ylt=AkCL.v2GjdWue8GD1jI7SpCbCMZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTVxZGxtaHV0BGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3MgZm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDNzc3NWRkZGQtNjRhOC0zNTZkLTg1YmYtMThjYzc2MDUwMjRkBHBvcwM4BHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyA2Q1OTgyZjQwLTJmM2MtMTFlMi1iYmRkLWQxZTUxY2M4NWI3Zg--;_ylg=X3oDMTM1YzI4MzNpBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDYWM5YzJiYTctOGQzYy0zNzFmLWJjYTItYzQyZGQyNGY3YmI1BHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3x0aGV0aWNrZXQEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3

1)  Is the USA hypocritical in its attacks on other countries' human rights records?  Why or why not?

2)  Does the Congress have the right to criticize the actions of other governments?

New York City's "Stop-and-Frisk" Policy

Many foreign students believe that the USA is the "land of freedom" and that this extends to the way the police interact with people.  However, the Mayor of New York City and NY City's Police Chief have established a very controversial policy which many New Yorkers object to.  It is called "stop-and-frisk."

Basically, if a police officer feels that a person might be a criminal, or if the police officer feels the person might be acting suspiciously, he can stop the person and "frisk" him or her.  "Frisking" also goes on at airports where security guards run their hands over a person's body to try to detect any type of weapon.

So the police in NY City have the authority to stop ANYONE at any time and frisk him/her, supposedly if the person looks suspicious.  It is up to the police officer to determine what "suspicious" means.

Here is an article about the "stop-and-frisk" policy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57550884/activists-nypd-stop-and-frisks-down-30-percent/?tag=nl.e875&s_cid=e875

1)  How do you feel about this policy?  Do you think the police have the right to stop a person just because they think he "might" be a criminal or that he "seems" to be acting suspiciously?

2)  Does this happen in your home country?

3)  Did you know that this occurs in New York City? Does this change your perception of America and its freedoms?

4)  Why do you think the city is doing this?  Do you think this can be an effective way to stop
people from carrying weapons?

5)  An opponent of this policy states that it is wasteful of resources and that the police should be doing something more meaningful.  How do you feel about that?

6)  How would you feel if you were just walking down the street and a police officer demanded that you put your arms against a wall so he could frisk you?

7)  Do you think that this policy helps or hurts the relationship between the police and common people?

8)  Most of the people stopped and frisked are Black and Latino.  Do you think that "stop-and-frisk" is a racist policy?

9)  Only a small number of weapons have been found through this policy.  Is the policy worth all the effort? - over 1,000 people are frisked every day and hardly any weapons are found.

"Jocks" Protect High School Girl From Bullying

In American schools, bullying used to be openly tolerated by teachers and school administrators.  Basically, if a boy was being bullied, teachers would blame him for being "weak" and for not "standing up for himself."  This was the attitude even though virtually all bullies pick on students who are not as physically strong as they are.

This attitude was forced to change, somewhat, after the Columbine High School shootings. 

http://history1900s.about.com/od/famouscrimesscandals/a/columbine.htm

Apparently two boys became upset by the constant bullying they faced from "jocks" (athletes) and planned a vindictive shooting spree as a result.

The following article shows that bullying still seems to be a problem in US high schools,  although in this case the "jocks" are protecting a young woman from being bullied.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/arizona-student-special-needs-avoids-bullies-protection-football-112516229.html

1)  How bad is bullying in your home country's schools?

2)  What do teachers and administrators do about bullying in your home country?

3)  What do you think should be done about bullying?

4)  In the above article, members of the school's football team have to protect a young woman from bullies.  Do you think this is necessary?  What do you think of a school administration where the football team has to protect students and not staff or teachers?

---------------------------------


Yes, I'm the guy who caused the "scandal" in Asia two years ago :P http://www.shoutcastblog.com/2010/05/11/wondergirls-were-mistreated-by-jyp-entertainment/

Yes, I'm also the guy who wrote the very funny ESL book: New York City Sucks, But You'll Wanna Live Here Anyway http://www.amazon.com/Sucks-Youll-Wanna-Anyway-ebook/dp/B004TSPAQS

Female "Masturbation" Bar Opens in Tokyo

Apparently there is a stigma against female masturbation in some cultures.  Indeed, there has been a stigma against women even enjoying sex with a partner in many cultures.

In some cultures women are not only discouraged from viewing sex as something pleasurable, but female "circumcision" is practiced to ensure that the female clitoris is surgically removed so that women cannot even have sexual pleasure.

In Tokyo a "masturbation" bar has been opened so that women can come to a place where they can freely discuss sexual issues with other women and shop for sex toys which they can use on themselves to help themselves achieve orgasm.  If a woman can easily achieve an orgasm by herself, through masturbation, it becomes easier to have orgasms with sexual partners.  The owners of the bar might even argue that achieving an orgasm by oneself is sufficient.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/love-joule-japans-first-bar-devoted-female-masturbation-opens-tokyo_n_1930552.html

1)  Why do you think there is a stigma against female masturbation?  Why isn't there a stigma against male masturbation?

2)  Do you think this type of bar is needed? If so, is it needed everywhere, or just some countries?

3)  Why do you think some women feel such a bar is necessary in Japan?  Do you think these bars
are more necessary in Asia, where women are just starting to really experience full equality with men?

4)  Would you go to this type of bar?  Why or why not?

5)  Do you like this concept or do you think it is silly or ridiculous?

6)  Why do you think some people might object to such a bar?

7)  Do you think there should be sex education classes in college which teach about attaining sexual pleasure (instead of the academic approach to human sexuality)?

Brasilian "Virgin" Auctions Her Body For A Charity

A Brasilian young woman has promised to have sex with a Japanese guy who "bought" the right to have sex with her through internet bidding.

Many people around the world are shocked by her action, but she claims that she will be using the money (over $700,000) to help build homes for poor people. 

Here's one article, please judge for yourself:

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2012/09/28/brazilian-students-auctions-off-virginity-for-charity/

1)  There is a common philosophical or ethical debate:  does the end justify the means?  Or, is it right to pursue a "good" goal through "unethical" ways?  What do you think?

2)  The woman claims she is not a prostitute because she is only going to do this one time.  But the definition of a prostitute is a woman who sells her body for money.  What do you think?

3)  In general, do you approve or disapprove of what this woman is doing?

4)  In the USA, some young women work as strippers or take other types of jobs in the sex industry to pay for their college tuition.  How do you feel about this?

5)  If someone offered to provide $700,000 to a charity of your choice, on the condition that you have sex with that person, would you do it?

Police Dogs: Constitutional or Not?

There will be a case going before the Supreme Court dealing with the issue of whether police can use dogs to "sniff" out drugs from outside people's homes or even in airports.

Usually, the police are not allowed to check whether a person is carrying something illegal unless the police are reasonably suspicious that the person has something illegal.  However, many people have argued that police dogs in airports randomly sniff innocent and unsuspicious people.

In the case mentioned in this article, a police dog was brought to a person's house and sniffed from outside and determined there were drugs inside.  The police then obtained a court order to enter the house and arrested the person.  However, a judge threw the case out saying that the police had no constitutional right to use the dog to sniff outside of a person's house.  Basically the judge was saying that people have a right to their privacy and that you just can't walk around neighborhoods with dogs sniffing people's homes for drugs.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-turn-nose-dog-sniffs-110522793.html

1)  How do you feel about the dogs at airports that sniff for drugs?  Do you think this is necessary?  Is this right?

2)  Would you agree with the judge who threw this case out?  Why/why not?

3)  Many people are upset when New York City police officers stop them from entering the subway system in order to search their bags.  Many people feel this is a "random" search which violates our rights.  How do you feel about this policy?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please buy my book:  New York City Sucks But You'll Still Wanna Live Here!  It's available as an affordable and easy to read e-book: http://www.amazon.com/Sucks-Youll-Wanna-Anyway-ebook/dp/B004TSPAQS