I love movies, but I don't watch them very often. I spend several hours a day inert at work and have a hard time slowing myself down afterward. Despite this fact, I am very aware of movies and have a somewhat Rain Man*-like ability to recite plots and casts for movies I haven't seen, something my family likes to take advantage of. An actual conversation that occurred when my dad was channel surfing:
Dad: "Hey, what's this movie on here?"
Me: "Umm, it looks like Se7en. Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman are detectives looking for a serial killer who kills according to the seven deadly sins, Gwyneth Paltrow is in it, too. Kind of noir-ish."
Dad: "Is it any good?"
Me: "Don't know, I haven't seen it. The ending is pretty gory, though."
*Note: I have only seen about 15 minutes of Rain Man
I'd really like to see more movies, there are a LOT I want to catch up on, but it usually has to be someone else's idea. I've never tried Redbox, but am somewhat put off by the limited number of movies available. They all seem to be new-ish releases and a lot of movies over the past few years haven't appealed to me. I don't like sappy movies (The Notebook, gag!), remakes of remakes, films based on TV series that have already been beaten to death (Sex and the City II, I'm talking about you), movies with kid heroes, predictable rom-coms, or stuff that just sounds stupid.
I though old-school video stores were fun, especially to visit with someone else to try to choose something everyone would like. My tastes don't always run towards the newly-released. I like movies that are suspenseful (Coen Brothers), introspective (Lost in Translation, Vicky Cristina Barcelona), Old Hollywood (Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock; Jean Harlow and Marilyn Monroe), and, somewhat incongruously, social commentary presented in middle-school humor (South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut and Borat). I might also add that I'll happily sit through anything from the "dislike" list should it feature George Clooney or Javier Bardem. Video stores' return dates also forced me to sit down and watch the movie, which I needed. I no longer have one in my town.
Not liking either of the available choices, I recently signed up for Netflix. The ads sounded great, streaming movies on demand! But almost everything I wanted to watch was available only by mail. And now, with the new incarnation of Netflix I would've had to sign up for another, different service in order to get them by mail. No, thank you. I'm keeping the streaming version, but only because I've found a few TV shows I like.
So I suppose I'll stick to another old-school method of receiving movies: having them handed to me by friends who are movie buffs. I trust their tastes, and the inevitable "what did you think?" conversation ensures I'll actually watch!
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Entertainment: 40's Style
Before TV, our grandparents listened to radio shows. Much like TV, they were on a regular schedule and the family gathered around to listen. Were they any good? Was it still as entertaining with nothing to watch?
Being employed in a research position, I decided to set up the most credible experiment I could and compare a radio show to a similar TV show. I've long been a fan of I Love Lucy, which ran from 1951-1957 and was the first scripted TV show to be filmed live in front of a studio audience.
If you've never watched it, it's still funny today. I can imagine it irritating some hard-core feminists, like the EPAW crowd, but it's also easy to love for what it is: an extremely well written show with excellent comedic timing and storylines that are appropriate to its time period (along with some beautiful, ladylike 1950's fashion). It's still a model sitcom, with TV Guide voting it second to Seinfeld in their list of greatest television shows, a ranking which may or may not stand the test of time.
What many don't realize is that I Love Lucy was loosely based on a radio show, "My Favorite Husband". In it, Lucille Ball played Liz Cooper, a melodramatic and accident-prone housewife. When the decision was made to create a TV show Ball insisted on working with her real-life husband, Desi Arnaz, so a character was created for him: Cuban bandleader Ricky Ricardo. The cast was rounded out with William Frawley and Kansan Vivian Vance playing Fred and Ethel Mertz, neighbors and landlords of Lucy and Ricky. Ball's character, despite the name change, was largely the same.
I listened to a few episodes of My Favorite Husband, and found it very similar to I Love Lucy in characterization. Liz was similarly loveable yet harebrained and sounded just like Lucy (including Lucy's notorious "waaaah" cry), while her husband was much like Ricky: often exasperated with her antics but unfailingly forgiving. The storylines, writing and soundtrack were all very recognizable. And, it was funny!
Entertaining as it was, it's clear why "My Favorite Husband" slipped into the background and Ball became a sensation on TV: she was a very gifted physical comedienne. No scripting could take advantage of her facial expressions or disguises and some of her most famous scenes could never have happened on the radio.
Below is a clip of an episode in which the group is on a trip to Hollywood so Ricky can film a part in a movie. Lucy has bragged to frenemy and fellow New Yorker Carolyn Appleby about all the stars she's met - but doesn't expect that Carolyn will show up asking for an introduction! Trying to save face, Lucy and Ethel scheme to steal severely myopic Carolyn's glasses. Ethel entertains her while Lucy goes in and out dressed up as various actors, each with a different excuse about why they can't stay or can't speak. The last was Harpo Marx, only Lucy didn't know that Ricky had just met the real Harpo and sent him up to their suite say hi:
While radio didn't take full advantage of some stars' talent, it did have its own advantages: the ability to multitask. I work and attend school full-time, so I often have to get creative to balance my time. With TV I'm forced to choose: watch TV or do anything else. Studying has taken precedence over TV, but it would be nice to be able to keep up with my favorite episodes while doing laundry, washing dishes, etc. (Yes, I know I could put a TV in the kitchen. No, I'm not going to.) For that we have the modern descendants of radio shows: audiobooks, podcasts, etc. They may not be serial episodes, and thankfully they're without hokey laugh tracks, but their popularity shows that our desire just to listen and our ability to fill in the pictures with our imaginations is no different from that of our grandparents.
Being employed in a research position, I decided to set up the most credible experiment I could and compare a radio show to a similar TV show. I've long been a fan of I Love Lucy, which ran from 1951-1957 and was the first scripted TV show to be filmed live in front of a studio audience.
If you've never watched it, it's still funny today. I can imagine it irritating some hard-core feminists, like the EPAW crowd, but it's also easy to love for what it is: an extremely well written show with excellent comedic timing and storylines that are appropriate to its time period (along with some beautiful, ladylike 1950's fashion). It's still a model sitcom, with TV Guide voting it second to Seinfeld in their list of greatest television shows, a ranking which may or may not stand the test of time.
What many don't realize is that I Love Lucy was loosely based on a radio show, "My Favorite Husband". In it, Lucille Ball played Liz Cooper, a melodramatic and accident-prone housewife. When the decision was made to create a TV show Ball insisted on working with her real-life husband, Desi Arnaz, so a character was created for him: Cuban bandleader Ricky Ricardo. The cast was rounded out with William Frawley and Kansan Vivian Vance playing Fred and Ethel Mertz, neighbors and landlords of Lucy and Ricky. Ball's character, despite the name change, was largely the same.
I listened to a few episodes of My Favorite Husband, and found it very similar to I Love Lucy in characterization. Liz was similarly loveable yet harebrained and sounded just like Lucy (including Lucy's notorious "waaaah" cry), while her husband was much like Ricky: often exasperated with her antics but unfailingly forgiving. The storylines, writing and soundtrack were all very recognizable. And, it was funny!
Entertaining as it was, it's clear why "My Favorite Husband" slipped into the background and Ball became a sensation on TV: she was a very gifted physical comedienne. No scripting could take advantage of her facial expressions or disguises and some of her most famous scenes could never have happened on the radio.
Below is a clip of an episode in which the group is on a trip to Hollywood so Ricky can film a part in a movie. Lucy has bragged to frenemy and fellow New Yorker Carolyn Appleby about all the stars she's met - but doesn't expect that Carolyn will show up asking for an introduction! Trying to save face, Lucy and Ethel scheme to steal severely myopic Carolyn's glasses. Ethel entertains her while Lucy goes in and out dressed up as various actors, each with a different excuse about why they can't stay or can't speak. The last was Harpo Marx, only Lucy didn't know that Ricky had just met the real Harpo and sent him up to their suite say hi:
While radio didn't take full advantage of some stars' talent, it did have its own advantages: the ability to multitask. I work and attend school full-time, so I often have to get creative to balance my time. With TV I'm forced to choose: watch TV or do anything else. Studying has taken precedence over TV, but it would be nice to be able to keep up with my favorite episodes while doing laundry, washing dishes, etc. (Yes, I know I could put a TV in the kitchen. No, I'm not going to.) For that we have the modern descendants of radio shows: audiobooks, podcasts, etc. They may not be serial episodes, and thankfully they're without hokey laugh tracks, but their popularity shows that our desire just to listen and our ability to fill in the pictures with our imaginations is no different from that of our grandparents.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Napster vs. iTunes
Electronically delivered music is something I'm adjusting to. As a self-labeled music snob I'm still mourning the downfall of the album.
Music in an electronic form is something I tolerate only because I don't (yet) have a surround sound system hooked up to a turntable. (My uncle does, and the best Christmas present I received last year was curling up with a glass of good wine after the rest of the family had gone and listening to The Rolling Stones Let it Bleed album on vinyl. From the beginning riff of Gimme Shelter to the fadeout of You Can't Always Get What You Want, I had chills.) An electronic track goes in your ears, but the sound is canned, perfected, too bright. Vinyl picks you up and hurls you back through time, taking you with it to the studio or onstage. You feel the energy, the rhythm thumps in your chest until you can't tell the music from your heartbeat. But I digress.
Despite my Luddite tendencies, I've reluctantly come over to electronic music to pick up some tracks because it's easier. I have a song in my head, and two minutes later it's on my computer or iPhone. I use iTunes, and have since before procuring the phone, and am likely to stay with them.
I'm old enough to remember Napster in its original incarnation, when it was free file-sharing, and resented it then. "How can you dislike something free?," you ask. At the time, and still, some of my favorite artists were not insanely wealthy rock stars but new-ish, struggling bands whose members didn't live luxuriously and who owed their labels plenty in recoupable debt. One hit does not always bring a windfall. One of my favorite bands, Semisonic, is somewhat known for their ubiquitous 1998 hit, "Closing Time," but it didn't make them rich. Drummer Jacob Slichter wrote an eye-opening book, So You Wanna Be a Rock & Roll Star about their years before and after Closing Time. It isn't all fortune and partying. I didn't really mind Napster happening to bands like Green Day and Matchbox Twenty, it didn't hurt them, but I felt some righteous anger at what amounted to theft from nearly-starving artists.
I could be accused of holding a grudge, but today's Napster isn't much better for me. I like to download music and listen to it on several devices: my work computer, my laptop, my iPhone, and even burned on CDs to listen to in the car. (Yes, I still do this.) Paying a subscription fee, when I'll sometimes go weeks without downloading, and only being able to listen on a computer with its heinous sound quality aren't features that appeal to me.
iTunes does charge per track, but it's mine. All mine, to use how I like. iTunes also rips the rare CD I buy from my favorite artists, adds them to the queue and allows me to transfer the entire album or just a track or two. I get mine, my favorite bands you've never heard of get theirs. And that's as good as it gets, without being on vinyl!
Music in an electronic form is something I tolerate only because I don't (yet) have a surround sound system hooked up to a turntable. (My uncle does, and the best Christmas present I received last year was curling up with a glass of good wine after the rest of the family had gone and listening to The Rolling Stones Let it Bleed album on vinyl. From the beginning riff of Gimme Shelter to the fadeout of You Can't Always Get What You Want, I had chills.) An electronic track goes in your ears, but the sound is canned, perfected, too bright. Vinyl picks you up and hurls you back through time, taking you with it to the studio or onstage. You feel the energy, the rhythm thumps in your chest until you can't tell the music from your heartbeat. But I digress.
Despite my Luddite tendencies, I've reluctantly come over to electronic music to pick up some tracks because it's easier. I have a song in my head, and two minutes later it's on my computer or iPhone. I use iTunes, and have since before procuring the phone, and am likely to stay with them.
I'm old enough to remember Napster in its original incarnation, when it was free file-sharing, and resented it then. "How can you dislike something free?," you ask. At the time, and still, some of my favorite artists were not insanely wealthy rock stars but new-ish, struggling bands whose members didn't live luxuriously and who owed their labels plenty in recoupable debt. One hit does not always bring a windfall. One of my favorite bands, Semisonic, is somewhat known for their ubiquitous 1998 hit, "Closing Time," but it didn't make them rich. Drummer Jacob Slichter wrote an eye-opening book, So You Wanna Be a Rock & Roll Star about their years before and after Closing Time. It isn't all fortune and partying. I didn't really mind Napster happening to bands like Green Day and Matchbox Twenty, it didn't hurt them, but I felt some righteous anger at what amounted to theft from nearly-starving artists.
I could be accused of holding a grudge, but today's Napster isn't much better for me. I like to download music and listen to it on several devices: my work computer, my laptop, my iPhone, and even burned on CDs to listen to in the car. (Yes, I still do this.) Paying a subscription fee, when I'll sometimes go weeks without downloading, and only being able to listen on a computer with its heinous sound quality aren't features that appeal to me.
iTunes does charge per track, but it's mine. All mine, to use how I like. iTunes also rips the rare CD I buy from my favorite artists, adds them to the queue and allows me to transfer the entire album or just a track or two. I get mine, my favorite bands you've never heard of get theirs. And that's as good as it gets, without being on vinyl!
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The fate of newspapers
Around the country, newspapers are struggling. As online media continues to grow, print media shrinks Many small-town newspapers are publishing fewer issues a week, consolidating with nearby towns, or closing altogether. Big city newspapers aren't immune as they too see subscriptions fall. As subscriptions go, so goes advertising. As income goes, so go jobs.
The newspaper industry is looking at solutions. Many papers have an online counterpart, and a few charge a subscription fee or a fee per story. Some of these have also added apps for smartphones and tablets. Some are even looking at big-screen e-readers, larger than a Kindle, thinner, and more durable. But will consumers pay for these?
I do keep up on the local news, but I do so almost exclusively online. The Wichita Eagle posts most of their main headlines on their site, http://www.kansas.com/, and has a free iPhone app which I check daily. As much as the paper itself, particularly the Sunday edition, has been a major source of information for me for most of my life, I have to admit that my draw to the print version is mostly nostalgic.
In 2001 I moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas to attend the University of Arkansas. I enrolled in a 100 level mass communications class (which, obviously, K-State did not find sufficient) and one of our class requirements was to subscribe to Time Magazine and to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. I enjoyed Time, there were some great issues and some I still have somewhere, such as the 9-11 commemorative issue and one that featured the life and death of George Harrison. The paper, however, was a nuisance.
One morning, soon after subscribing, I woke at 4:30 AM to SMACK! on the door of my apartment. As a single girl living on my own for the first time, I was halfway to the knife drawer before I realized what the sound was. It continued every morning for six months and I was never able to sleep through it. I hated dragging them inside when they were wet or dirty, and they piled up quickly. Fayetteville didn't have much in the way of recycling options at the time, so I was forced to throw stacks of them in the dumpster.
Newspapers are a bit inconvenient. They're large, they require a lot of folding and unfolding, I get ink on my hands. And then they sit, until I either cart them off or use them to wash windows (so much better than paper towels - try it!).
I prefer to read the Eagle online, but I know that the paper has to make money. This means that the more the print subscriptions fall, either the paper will have to charge for online subscriptions or the ads will become more and more intrusive. Neither sounds like a great option to me, and it likely won't to other readers either. We've been spoiled to free news and easily ignorable ads for too long. It's hard to say which I would prefer. I don't want to pay, but I also don't want to have to watch an ad video every time I check the page.
Ultimately, the fate of newspapers will be up to the consumers. Will they continue to buy hard copies? Probably not. Will they buy another device just for the purpose of reading newspapers? It's questionable. The choice is likely between paying for content or dealing with advertising. Collectively, we'll decide the lesser of two evils.
The newspaper industry is looking at solutions. Many papers have an online counterpart, and a few charge a subscription fee or a fee per story. Some of these have also added apps for smartphones and tablets. Some are even looking at big-screen e-readers, larger than a Kindle, thinner, and more durable. But will consumers pay for these?
I do keep up on the local news, but I do so almost exclusively online. The Wichita Eagle posts most of their main headlines on their site, http://www.kansas.com/, and has a free iPhone app which I check daily. As much as the paper itself, particularly the Sunday edition, has been a major source of information for me for most of my life, I have to admit that my draw to the print version is mostly nostalgic.
In 2001 I moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas to attend the University of Arkansas. I enrolled in a 100 level mass communications class (which, obviously, K-State did not find sufficient) and one of our class requirements was to subscribe to Time Magazine and to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. I enjoyed Time, there were some great issues and some I still have somewhere, such as the 9-11 commemorative issue and one that featured the life and death of George Harrison. The paper, however, was a nuisance.
One morning, soon after subscribing, I woke at 4:30 AM to SMACK! on the door of my apartment. As a single girl living on my own for the first time, I was halfway to the knife drawer before I realized what the sound was. It continued every morning for six months and I was never able to sleep through it. I hated dragging them inside when they were wet or dirty, and they piled up quickly. Fayetteville didn't have much in the way of recycling options at the time, so I was forced to throw stacks of them in the dumpster.
Newspapers are a bit inconvenient. They're large, they require a lot of folding and unfolding, I get ink on my hands. And then they sit, until I either cart them off or use them to wash windows (so much better than paper towels - try it!).
I prefer to read the Eagle online, but I know that the paper has to make money. This means that the more the print subscriptions fall, either the paper will have to charge for online subscriptions or the ads will become more and more intrusive. Neither sounds like a great option to me, and it likely won't to other readers either. We've been spoiled to free news and easily ignorable ads for too long. It's hard to say which I would prefer. I don't want to pay, but I also don't want to have to watch an ad video every time I check the page.
Ultimately, the fate of newspapers will be up to the consumers. Will they continue to buy hard copies? Probably not. Will they buy another device just for the purpose of reading newspapers? It's questionable. The choice is likely between paying for content or dealing with advertising. Collectively, we'll decide the lesser of two evils.
Friday, September 9, 2011
The hypocrisy of "banning" books
Stories of books banned, especially in schools, are nothing new. Parents have long requested that books be removed for language and obscenities, violence, sexuality and a host of other content deemed unsuitable for children. Surprisingly, many of these books are considered classics, including "James and the Giant Peach" by Roald Dahl (obscenity/violence) and Shel Silverstein's "A Light in the Attic" (disrespect/horror/violence).
Anything involving sexuality has been hotly contested of late. Is it any wonder? For the past few election cycles, candidates' platforms have addressed gay marriage and sex ed. Opposition to gay marriage and support for abstinence-only education is usually, if not always, a stance based on a candidate's religious beliefs and those of his or her intended constituents. As these have become more important social issues, it's only natural that we find a way to explain them to our youngest members. Hence books, such as "Daddy's Roommate," and "Heather Has Two Mommies," which are often met with outrage and demand for withdrawal when they appear in libraries.
One of the newest targets? The Merriam-Webster dictionary. Its offense is the inclusion of a clinical definition for "oral sex." "We don't want our children seeing this," they say, or, "We want to teach these things at home."
Often, the same people who challenge these books keep a book (usually more than one) in their homes which they use to tell their children stories of disobedience, rape, incest, homosexuality, heterosexuality, war, adultery, racism and the death of children, not to mention many, many horrifically violent murders. Children sing songs about genocide (death by drowning for most of the world's population), murders attempted in various ways (burning the victims alive, throwing them to lions) and satanic forces. They do this all in places decorated with artistic renderings of a torture victim.
Who are these people? Christians of all denominations.
Before I go any further, I'll make a couple of disclaimers: I know that not every parent who challenges a book or asks for its removal does so for religious reasons. However, it is a very popular rationale, particularly for content involving sexuality. Second, I mean this in no way to disparage Christianity or the Bible; I am a Christian, but I also believe in using common sense.
What this comes down to is that children are either able to process these topics or they aren't. Clearly, Christians believe their children are able to handle the following, as they are classic Sunday School stories:
Genocide: Noah's Ark (Genesis chapters 6-9)
Ethnic cleansing: Pharaoh's oppression of Israel (Exodus chapter 1)
Murder: Cain and Abel (Genesis chapter 4)
Attempted murder: Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace (Daniel chapter 3), Daniel in the lion's den (Daniel chapter 6)
Nudity, lust, adultery, murder and the death of a child: David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel chapter 11)
Torture and murder: Jesus' crucifixion (Matthew chapter 27, Mark chapter 15, Luke chapter 23, John chapter 19)
Children's Bibles or Bible story books often present drawings of such (these are taken from my own childhood Bible story book):
These stories are perfectly acceptable, they say, because they are true, it's the Bible, they teach the consequences of sin and/or they are being taught at home. All fine points.
However, violence and sexuality also happen in real life and in non-religious books. Can't parents also use these to teach consequences or to reinforce values?
The Bible certainly doesn't hide that homosexuality exists, and any curious child can easily stumble upon the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis chapter 19). Is it any worse to bring home a fictional book about a child who has two daddies or two mommies (and in which no one offers their children up to sex-starved crowd)? I say no, it isn't.
A common-sense approach to finding a library book dealing with these topics in a child's backpack would be to read it together and discuss it. Parents can share with their children their views on homosexuality and gay marriage and teach that it isn't OK to ostracize or make fun of classmates for the makeup of their family. It also reinforces that home is the place to ask about confusing or uncomfortable topics. The same goes for depictions of heterosexuality. The Song of Solomon is all about the sexual relationship between a husband and wife. While it contains no graphic depictions of sexual acts, it is far more lustful and passionate than a very unsexy dictionary definition.
So let's use some common sense. Children are able to understand a variety of "adult" topics if presented to them in an age-appropriate way and discussed with a parent. Besides, most children who first hear of "oral sex" by reading the dictionary will likely need to look up the words "oral," "stimulation," and "genitals" to fully comprehend the act. In children this young, comprehension is likely to be followed by, "EWWWWWWW!"
Anything involving sexuality has been hotly contested of late. Is it any wonder? For the past few election cycles, candidates' platforms have addressed gay marriage and sex ed. Opposition to gay marriage and support for abstinence-only education is usually, if not always, a stance based on a candidate's religious beliefs and those of his or her intended constituents. As these have become more important social issues, it's only natural that we find a way to explain them to our youngest members. Hence books, such as "Daddy's Roommate," and "Heather Has Two Mommies," which are often met with outrage and demand for withdrawal when they appear in libraries.
One of the newest targets? The Merriam-Webster dictionary. Its offense is the inclusion of a clinical definition for "oral sex." "We don't want our children seeing this," they say, or, "We want to teach these things at home."
Often, the same people who challenge these books keep a book (usually more than one) in their homes which they use to tell their children stories of disobedience, rape, incest, homosexuality, heterosexuality, war, adultery, racism and the death of children, not to mention many, many horrifically violent murders. Children sing songs about genocide (death by drowning for most of the world's population), murders attempted in various ways (burning the victims alive, throwing them to lions) and satanic forces. They do this all in places decorated with artistic renderings of a torture victim.
Who are these people? Christians of all denominations.
Before I go any further, I'll make a couple of disclaimers: I know that not every parent who challenges a book or asks for its removal does so for religious reasons. However, it is a very popular rationale, particularly for content involving sexuality. Second, I mean this in no way to disparage Christianity or the Bible; I am a Christian, but I also believe in using common sense.
What this comes down to is that children are either able to process these topics or they aren't. Clearly, Christians believe their children are able to handle the following, as they are classic Sunday School stories:
Genocide: Noah's Ark (Genesis chapters 6-9)
Ethnic cleansing: Pharaoh's oppression of Israel (Exodus chapter 1)
Murder: Cain and Abel (Genesis chapter 4)
Attempted murder: Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace (Daniel chapter 3), Daniel in the lion's den (Daniel chapter 6)
Nudity, lust, adultery, murder and the death of a child: David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel chapter 11)
Torture and murder: Jesus' crucifixion (Matthew chapter 27, Mark chapter 15, Luke chapter 23, John chapter 19)
Children's Bibles or Bible story books often present drawings of such (these are taken from my own childhood Bible story book):
 |
| Read N Grow Picture Bible. Fort Worth, TX: Sweet, 1984. 134. Print |
These stories are perfectly acceptable, they say, because they are true, it's the Bible, they teach the consequences of sin and/or they are being taught at home. All fine points.
However, violence and sexuality also happen in real life and in non-religious books. Can't parents also use these to teach consequences or to reinforce values?
The Bible certainly doesn't hide that homosexuality exists, and any curious child can easily stumble upon the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis chapter 19). Is it any worse to bring home a fictional book about a child who has two daddies or two mommies (and in which no one offers their children up to sex-starved crowd)? I say no, it isn't.
A common-sense approach to finding a library book dealing with these topics in a child's backpack would be to read it together and discuss it. Parents can share with their children their views on homosexuality and gay marriage and teach that it isn't OK to ostracize or make fun of classmates for the makeup of their family. It also reinforces that home is the place to ask about confusing or uncomfortable topics. The same goes for depictions of heterosexuality. The Song of Solomon is all about the sexual relationship between a husband and wife. While it contains no graphic depictions of sexual acts, it is far more lustful and passionate than a very unsexy dictionary definition.
So let's use some common sense. Children are able to understand a variety of "adult" topics if presented to them in an age-appropriate way and discussed with a parent. Besides, most children who first hear of "oral sex" by reading the dictionary will likely need to look up the words "oral," "stimulation," and "genitals" to fully comprehend the act. In children this young, comprehension is likely to be followed by, "EWWWWWWW!"
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Some wisdom is timeless...
In 1732 Benjamin Franklin began publishing the annual Poor Richard's Almanack. Like many other almanacks (yes, this was the correct spelling!) Poor Richard's offered weather predictions, a calendar, astrological and astronomical information, poems, household tips and such which colonial Americans relied on. However, it is best remembered for Franklin's proverbs and words of wisdom, some of which remain today. Ever heard a saying beginning, "early to bed, early to rise"?
Some of Franklin's sayings in Poor Richard's Almanack are outdated or don't translate to modern humor. Some are still funny ("He that lives upon Hope, dies farting"). Some are sexist to today's culture ("Let thy maidservant be faithful, strong and homely"). Some are sexist and funny ("You cannot pluck roses without fear of thorns, Nor enjoy a fair wife without danger of horns").
But many are timeless, and while perhaps simplistic to us, definitely worth considering. A favorite of mine:
He that would live in peace & at ease, Must not speak all he knows, nor judge all he sees.
I didn't read another passage that I thought spoke so clearly to modern media or culture. Thanks to our ease of communication, including texting, Facebook statuses, Twitter, message boards and yes, blogging, we're given endless outlets to speak all we know. And enjoy it. While this can be fun and provoke a lively discussion or debate, we all know someone who gets a little too intense or wound up, or is just a know-it-all. And if we're honest, some days we're that person. It can be frustrating to see someone giving out bad information or poor advice, but is it worth getting worked up about if it isn't harmful? (Dear best friend's ex-boyfriend: I know you know everything, but trust me: drinking beer while taking Lortab IS dangerous.)
As long as it isn't hurting anyone, oftentimes it's best to present one's case and then walk away with a cool head. And hey, it's also an easier walk with a bit of smug satisfaction at not having to worry about being the one to be caught giving misinformation!
I believe speaking all one knows also implies discretion and maintaining privacy. It seems that the proliferation of me-centric media has led most everyone to believe they're starring in their own reality show, but is it really wise to publicize everything we do? There have been numerous instances of people losing out on job opportunities due to less-than-flattering photos gleefully and publicly posted after nights out. Even though you might find a photo of yourself doing a keg stand hilarious, chances are your prospective boss won't. A lot of Gen Y-ers (or Millenials, whichever you prefer) seem to believe, and have been raised to believe, that self-expression of all forms and for all reasons is necessary and to be celebrated. (You can identify them at a very young age: they are screaming on an airplane and their parents think they're within their rights to express their displeasure this way, with very little regard for the displeasure of other passengers and their throbbing eardrums.) These are the people who tend to carry out every little drama and irritation in public, and while this might garner attention, is it a good kind?
We're also given plenty of opportunities to pass judgement, but here also, sometimes it's worth it to our sanity to live and let live. Reality TV invites and encourages judgement, celebrating and publicizing the latest antics or misfortunes of the self-destructive and famewhoring. These give us an outlet to gossip and sometimes scorn, but does it really improve our day to insult someone who calls himself "The Situation"? Does the latest inquest into whether or not an actress has had a nose job have any bearing on our lives?
Politics is always a hotbed for judgement and passionate opinions. Citizens have a duty to be informed and involved voters and seek out knowledge to form their own views. Unfortunately, straight reporting and unbiased publications can be hard to find. I question the usefulness of partisan political talk shows who bring on guests with different viewpoints seemingly for no other reason than to interrupt and shout at them. Do shows like these really educate us, or do they just inflame our emotions?
A discussion on judgement wouldn't be complete without including Facebook. We pass judgement on our "friends" without even thinking about it. Remember these people who post everything? We tend to think badly of them. "Does so-and-so REALLY have to post their dinner menu every night?" "I get really tired of seeing so-and-so bash his ex!", etc. Some of these people are simply immature and bordering on narcissistic. Others do so for different reasons; some are desperate for interaction and friendship, some are hurting and don't know another outlet for their pain. Rather than growing frustrated with them or trying to correct them, there's an easy option: Hide.
It might seems as though Franklin's wisdom was almost prophetic, but I believe it was a wise man living much earlier than Franklin who said it all: "There is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Some of Franklin's sayings in Poor Richard's Almanack are outdated or don't translate to modern humor. Some are still funny ("He that lives upon Hope, dies farting"). Some are sexist to today's culture ("Let thy maidservant be faithful, strong and homely"). Some are sexist and funny ("You cannot pluck roses without fear of thorns, Nor enjoy a fair wife without danger of horns").
But many are timeless, and while perhaps simplistic to us, definitely worth considering. A favorite of mine:
He that would live in peace & at ease, Must not speak all he knows, nor judge all he sees.
I didn't read another passage that I thought spoke so clearly to modern media or culture. Thanks to our ease of communication, including texting, Facebook statuses, Twitter, message boards and yes, blogging, we're given endless outlets to speak all we know. And enjoy it. While this can be fun and provoke a lively discussion or debate, we all know someone who gets a little too intense or wound up, or is just a know-it-all. And if we're honest, some days we're that person. It can be frustrating to see someone giving out bad information or poor advice, but is it worth getting worked up about if it isn't harmful? (Dear best friend's ex-boyfriend: I know you know everything, but trust me: drinking beer while taking Lortab IS dangerous.)
As long as it isn't hurting anyone, oftentimes it's best to present one's case and then walk away with a cool head. And hey, it's also an easier walk with a bit of smug satisfaction at not having to worry about being the one to be caught giving misinformation!
I believe speaking all one knows also implies discretion and maintaining privacy. It seems that the proliferation of me-centric media has led most everyone to believe they're starring in their own reality show, but is it really wise to publicize everything we do? There have been numerous instances of people losing out on job opportunities due to less-than-flattering photos gleefully and publicly posted after nights out. Even though you might find a photo of yourself doing a keg stand hilarious, chances are your prospective boss won't. A lot of Gen Y-ers (or Millenials, whichever you prefer) seem to believe, and have been raised to believe, that self-expression of all forms and for all reasons is necessary and to be celebrated. (You can identify them at a very young age: they are screaming on an airplane and their parents think they're within their rights to express their displeasure this way, with very little regard for the displeasure of other passengers and their throbbing eardrums.) These are the people who tend to carry out every little drama and irritation in public, and while this might garner attention, is it a good kind?
We're also given plenty of opportunities to pass judgement, but here also, sometimes it's worth it to our sanity to live and let live. Reality TV invites and encourages judgement, celebrating and publicizing the latest antics or misfortunes of the self-destructive and famewhoring. These give us an outlet to gossip and sometimes scorn, but does it really improve our day to insult someone who calls himself "The Situation"? Does the latest inquest into whether or not an actress has had a nose job have any bearing on our lives?
Politics is always a hotbed for judgement and passionate opinions. Citizens have a duty to be informed and involved voters and seek out knowledge to form their own views. Unfortunately, straight reporting and unbiased publications can be hard to find. I question the usefulness of partisan political talk shows who bring on guests with different viewpoints seemingly for no other reason than to interrupt and shout at them. Do shows like these really educate us, or do they just inflame our emotions?
A discussion on judgement wouldn't be complete without including Facebook. We pass judgement on our "friends" without even thinking about it. Remember these people who post everything? We tend to think badly of them. "Does so-and-so REALLY have to post their dinner menu every night?" "I get really tired of seeing so-and-so bash his ex!", etc. Some of these people are simply immature and bordering on narcissistic. Others do so for different reasons; some are desperate for interaction and friendship, some are hurting and don't know another outlet for their pain. Rather than growing frustrated with them or trying to correct them, there's an easy option: Hide.
It might seems as though Franklin's wisdom was almost prophetic, but I believe it was a wise man living much earlier than Franklin who said it all: "There is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Thursday, September 1, 2011
"Hi! We're Facebook friends!"
For a long time, researchers and individuals have pondered whether or not the internet and other media have helped or hurt social interaction. Have email, Facebook and text messages distanced us from each other, or have they brought us closer together?
My lifestyle and experience has led me to a firm conclusion: it depends.
Everyone has friends and a social circle around their local area. Almost everyone has a good friend or a few who lives a few hours or even states away, and media makes it easier to stay in touch.
My life is a little different. I live and work full-time in the Wichita area but travel at least half the weekends of the year, all over the country, for a hobby. Because of this, my social circle is geographically large, my good friends are far-flung, and I don't get to spend as much time as I like face to face with my local friends. Sometimes I spend more time in a month or year with "hobby" friends who live on the coasts than I do with "normal" friends who live in my hometown.
Facebook has made a revolutionary impact on my hobby group. I have close to 1300 friends, and while this probably makes me seem like a promiscuous friender, probably 3/4 of them are involved in the hobby. I have met most of them in person, and the others are friends of friends.
It's becoming common within the hobby to "friend" someone you said hi with, then get to know the person online. When we are at an event, talk often turns to Facebook. Pictures someone posted, a trip another wrote about, etc. "Hi, I'm ___________________, we're Facebook friends!" is a common refrain heard several times a day. It has, for us, been a networking tool. I've even geared my Facebook page to fostering this and getting people to talk. I often post a Question of the Day, which starts a lot of discussion and is very popular among the group!
Talking to and meeting people in person isn't too difficult. Since there is a common interest there is always something to start a conversation about. But even with these commonalities there are some obvious lifestyle and personality differences that can be intimidating for some.
For example, this spring I noticed a woman, M., who came to an event I was participating in just to help out. I was impressed by her willingness to help and wanted to thank her, but didn't have time. At least that's my excuse; the reality is that I didn't know quite what she'd think of me. M. is heavily tattooed and pierced, with short, dyed black hair. She favors baggy pants and has a wallet chain. I'm a girly girl who doesn't leave the hotel room without my makeup done, my hair done, and often in heels. A good friend had worked with M. and found her to be a cool person, so I decided to "friend" her on Facebook. We ended up commenting on each others' pages and finding out we had some very unique things in common: we both eat M&Ms and Skittles in a color order, and we would both be sea otters if given the choice. (This, thanks to "Questions of the Day.") I'm now looking forward to the next time I see M., getting to know her in person and seeing her sea otter tattoo (well...depending on where it's at!). The ice has been broken and a friendship has begun.
But for local friendships, electronic social interaction, as opposed to face to face meetings, can have a detrimental effect. My best friend from high school lives only 2 1/2 hours away. Due to both of us having hobbies and interests that take up our weekends, we haven't managed to talk much for the past several months except by email and text. I recently attended her wedding shower and felt unexpectedly sad at not having spent time with her for so long.
I think most of us will find that while the internet and social media can bridge some gaps, it can foster others. It lets us stay in touch when we can't meet in person, but we must be careful not to let it become a substitute for face time!
My lifestyle and experience has led me to a firm conclusion: it depends.
Everyone has friends and a social circle around their local area. Almost everyone has a good friend or a few who lives a few hours or even states away, and media makes it easier to stay in touch.
My life is a little different. I live and work full-time in the Wichita area but travel at least half the weekends of the year, all over the country, for a hobby. Because of this, my social circle is geographically large, my good friends are far-flung, and I don't get to spend as much time as I like face to face with my local friends. Sometimes I spend more time in a month or year with "hobby" friends who live on the coasts than I do with "normal" friends who live in my hometown.
Facebook has made a revolutionary impact on my hobby group. I have close to 1300 friends, and while this probably makes me seem like a promiscuous friender, probably 3/4 of them are involved in the hobby. I have met most of them in person, and the others are friends of friends.
It's becoming common within the hobby to "friend" someone you said hi with, then get to know the person online. When we are at an event, talk often turns to Facebook. Pictures someone posted, a trip another wrote about, etc. "Hi, I'm ___________________, we're Facebook friends!" is a common refrain heard several times a day. It has, for us, been a networking tool. I've even geared my Facebook page to fostering this and getting people to talk. I often post a Question of the Day, which starts a lot of discussion and is very popular among the group!
Talking to and meeting people in person isn't too difficult. Since there is a common interest there is always something to start a conversation about. But even with these commonalities there are some obvious lifestyle and personality differences that can be intimidating for some.
For example, this spring I noticed a woman, M., who came to an event I was participating in just to help out. I was impressed by her willingness to help and wanted to thank her, but didn't have time. At least that's my excuse; the reality is that I didn't know quite what she'd think of me. M. is heavily tattooed and pierced, with short, dyed black hair. She favors baggy pants and has a wallet chain. I'm a girly girl who doesn't leave the hotel room without my makeup done, my hair done, and often in heels. A good friend had worked with M. and found her to be a cool person, so I decided to "friend" her on Facebook. We ended up commenting on each others' pages and finding out we had some very unique things in common: we both eat M&Ms and Skittles in a color order, and we would both be sea otters if given the choice. (This, thanks to "Questions of the Day.") I'm now looking forward to the next time I see M., getting to know her in person and seeing her sea otter tattoo (well...depending on where it's at!). The ice has been broken and a friendship has begun.
But for local friendships, electronic social interaction, as opposed to face to face meetings, can have a detrimental effect. My best friend from high school lives only 2 1/2 hours away. Due to both of us having hobbies and interests that take up our weekends, we haven't managed to talk much for the past several months except by email and text. I recently attended her wedding shower and felt unexpectedly sad at not having spent time with her for so long.
I think most of us will find that while the internet and social media can bridge some gaps, it can foster others. It lets us stay in touch when we can't meet in person, but we must be careful not to let it become a substitute for face time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)