My wife and I decided to make a date Sunday afternoon, so we went to the cinema and watched Jurassic World, Steven Spielberg's fourth, and latest, installment of the Jurassic Park franchise.
This film may have shattered records as the highest grossing opening weekend blockbuster in history, but I personally feel that Jurassic World is a little bit overrated as movies go.
In my humble opinion, the movie is just a little bit better than the second and third installments of the series; but a far cry from equaling the original film.
My most significant complaint with World is that same as Lost World and JPIII: the rather casual violence and gratuitous death that the first film did not have.
While the "terrible lizards" killed and/or ate people in the first Jurassic Park, the deaths were strategic and integral parts of the story. In other words, when people died in the first film, it was part of telling the story. They weren't gratuitous.
But in Jurassic World, as in the previous two Jurassic movies, death came swiftly and often to people who otherwise weren't part of the story, or held insignificant bit parts that had little to no baring on the story's development.
Like the poor park employee who looked pathetically at Pratt, whimpering in sad silence a moment before Indominus Rex stuffed him in its mouth. Why not let the poor fellow live? His death had no significance to the story.
Either did the death of the hapless Brit girl tasked with keeping tabs on the female lead's nephews. She literally got carried away by flying dinosaurs before being dropped into a large pool of water, where she survived long enough to get picked up again by the airborne reptiles. She continued to fight but it was all for not as the giant aquatic dinosaur leaped from the water to snag the Pterodactyl that held the poor girl in its grasp. So, not only did the flying lizard get eaten, but so did the girl.
Why couldn't the girl have been dropped a second before the monster came out of the water to eat the dinosaur trying to kill her?
Then there were the velociraptors, who turned on the commando unit and shredded them to pieces. Screams of horror, pain, and terror resonated as the pack lizards had, their way with the troopers.
Sprays of blood, the sound effects of bones crunching, and shrieks of pain, pretty much told the story of the Indominus Rex and the velociraptors.
Don't get me wrong here: I understand the movie's undertones. The dinosaurs are supposed to be scary. We are supposed to be afraid of them, and the power they once possessed over the planet 65 million years ago. We are supposed to think critically about the wisdom of cloning and bringing back to life animals that could realistically wipe us off the map completely.
But is all of the gratuitous death really necessary? No, it's not. And I'm sure even Steven Spielberg would agree with that. However, movie makers and producers are continuously pushing the envelope of what is conventional. Boundaries are constantly being pressed toward the edge. Sometimes they go over it, too. They are on the look-out for ways to add "shock" value to their films. That is really the bottom line. Shock sells; be it sex, language, or blood.
Spielberg wants to see his movie to as many people curious enough to check it out. The edgier he makes it, the more shock it contains, the more money he makes. Period.
It is a sad reality that popular culture places a high value on shock, and the viewing public tends to soak up popular culture values like a sponge. Because movie-goers have been conditioned to enjoy, even love, shock in films, the more shock there is in a movie the more people seem to like it.
Hence why Jurassic World contains so much gratuitous death and casual violence. It isn't necessary; it's essential to selling movies anymore.
Very sick.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
A word on the Confederate flag
The recent mass shooting at a South Carolina black church by a supposed white supremacist has become like a spark to damp sticks of unstable dynamite.
More than just dander or ire has been raised by the shooter's violent crime. Holy heck is about to rain down on American whites. In some parts of the country, it may no longer be healthy to be white. It is already that way in South Central Los Angeles, Harlem, New York, and other big cities where racial minorities have carved out ethnic niches for themselves where they may exist apart from those danged anglo-saxon whites.
In a matter of months, there has been severe racial unrest from Ferguson, Missouri, to Baltimore, Maryland. In response, riotous protests have occurred across the nation. The deadly South Carolina shooting is like throwing a can of gasoline onto the white-hot coals of a campfire. And it has the potential of exploding out of control into a raging bonfire.
Something is going to happen that pushes our country's pride--its racial diversity--over the edge into martial law. And it may well be brewing now in the wake of the South Carolina shooting.
Waves of protesters throughout the South, and across the country, are now demanding the removal of the Confederate flag from statehouses as symbols of local government. This comes after learning that the South Carolina church shooter had an affection for the flag as part of his racist zeal.
Many American blacks view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racial hatred on par with the Nazi swastika of the 1930s. Although I am not black, I am also not without empathy. I can understand where black Americans might draw such a parallel.
But a word about that: The Confederate flag is nothing like the Nazi swastika. The swastika represented a regime that deliberately killed people who didn't agree with it, or who represented threats, or were just easy scapegoats used to advance the agenda of propagandists.
The Nazi flag represented not only hatred, but war crimes against humanity: millions of them, to be precise.
The Confederate flag, although insensitive to the descendants of slaves, represented a government nowhere near the level of the Nazi regime that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Under the Confederate flag, men fought for many of their own personal reasons. Preserving the institution of slavery was a national consequence of their service in the Confederate army and navy. But these guys fought predominantly because they were expected to. Sons followed fathers, brothers followed each other, cousins followed cousins, and neighbors followed neighbors off to war. It was believed to be the right thing to do, because their states needed their service.
I do not speak for the slaveowners of the period, but I daresay that however misguided their beliefs were on liberty and who was entitled to it, history shows that they generally took care of the things they owned; including, and especially, their slave property. Although paternalistic and patronizing in their view of the African race, Southern slaveowners weren't the murderers that led and carried out the orders of Germany's Third Reich.
Furthermore, slaveowners of the period took up arms to preserve their Constitutional right to own property--yes, even slave property--which they felt was being infringed upon with laws meant to keep them out of the new territories west of the Mississippi River. They genuinely felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, and that few in the federal government were willing to defend those rights. However mistaken we may feel today about the antebellum South's view of human property, the fact remains that certain human beings were property in the United States until after the end of the Civil War. This property was recognized in and protected by the United States Constitution.
Playing devil's advocate here, put yourself in the shoes of a Southern plantation owner of the period, and ask yourself what would you do if a government overtly denied your right to property by saying you couldn't have this property or that property with you if you wished to move to a new territory? Would you think perhaps the government was preparing to eventually take away this property from you outright?
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe humans should be slaves to other humans. But, in playing devil's advocate, I think my point is made.
Slaveowners weren't the monsters that the members of the Nazi Regime proved themselves to be. And their flags? Two different flags for two different times, reasons, and circumstances. Not the same.
Now, about the Confederate flag coming down: There are multiple reasons given in support of this argument. One is that the flag supports a period in our history in which racism from one group of people held another down. A second reason is that the Confederate flag represents rebellion against the United States government. I see the points of both arguments.
However, do we really want to open this can of worms? Should we take down all flags flown in support of the American Revolution fought 240 years ago? These flags represented rebellion against an established government, and the families of many Continentals owned slaves.
If we take down the Confederate flag, then we ought not ever fly the Spirit of 76 flag, the Gadsden Flag, or the Liberty Tree flag, because these were symbols of wreckless, oftentimes violent rebellion against a civil governing authority. And some of the people who fought under them were slaveowners, family of slaveowners, or who endorsed and embraced the institution.
As a matter of fact, if memory serves me correctly, slavery remained legal in the United States until December 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. This occurred nearly three years after slaves had been set free in the Confederate Southern states by the Emancipation Proclamation. (January 1, 1863) Ultimately, then, slavery legally existed longer in the United States than it did in the Confederate States.
And, so, it begs the question: Why not the uproar over the United States flag, the banner under which slavery was protected even after it was outlawed in rebelling states?
This is not the time to be hypocritical. If we are going to remove one flag, and deny the First Amendment on grounds that it is hurtful, then we ought to remove all symbols ever associated with hurtful activities, such as slavery.
Should American Indian tribes be allowed to tear down the Stars and Stripes because it symbolizes the hatred of white society over their ancestors? How about the civil and military oppression suffered by numerous Indian tribes throughout the 19th Century as thousands were marched away from their homes and placed on reservations? Would not the American flag be hurtful or offensive to Indian tribes? What if the tribes wish to follow suit, after the Confederate flag is successfully removed from statehouses, and demand that the American flag be taken down on their reservations for the same reason identified by black Americans? Heck, American Indians living off the reservation might still find offense to the flag flying wherever it does, and demand it be removed.
If the Confederate flag can be removed or banned because it is offensive and hurtful to others, then why not Old Glory itself?
Do we really want to go down this road, this slippery slope? Do we really want to open this can of worms? Precedents can have very damaging cascading effects not unlike a trail of dominoes that fall after one is knocked over.
I advise caution and restraint in the midst of angry passion. White-hot anger is dangerous, even deadly. The victims of the shooting at the South Carolina church are proof of that. How much more white-hot anger should we be fanning? How many more deaths must occur before reason and rationale take the place of passionate anger?
If the Confederate flag can be removed, other things can, too. It won't stop with just one thing. Kind of like the butterfly effect, something else always seems to happen in consequence.
Count on it, America.
More than just dander or ire has been raised by the shooter's violent crime. Holy heck is about to rain down on American whites. In some parts of the country, it may no longer be healthy to be white. It is already that way in South Central Los Angeles, Harlem, New York, and other big cities where racial minorities have carved out ethnic niches for themselves where they may exist apart from those danged anglo-saxon whites.
In a matter of months, there has been severe racial unrest from Ferguson, Missouri, to Baltimore, Maryland. In response, riotous protests have occurred across the nation. The deadly South Carolina shooting is like throwing a can of gasoline onto the white-hot coals of a campfire. And it has the potential of exploding out of control into a raging bonfire.
Something is going to happen that pushes our country's pride--its racial diversity--over the edge into martial law. And it may well be brewing now in the wake of the South Carolina shooting.
Waves of protesters throughout the South, and across the country, are now demanding the removal of the Confederate flag from statehouses as symbols of local government. This comes after learning that the South Carolina church shooter had an affection for the flag as part of his racist zeal.
Many American blacks view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racial hatred on par with the Nazi swastika of the 1930s. Although I am not black, I am also not without empathy. I can understand where black Americans might draw such a parallel.
But a word about that: The Confederate flag is nothing like the Nazi swastika. The swastika represented a regime that deliberately killed people who didn't agree with it, or who represented threats, or were just easy scapegoats used to advance the agenda of propagandists.
The Nazi flag represented not only hatred, but war crimes against humanity: millions of them, to be precise.
The Confederate flag, although insensitive to the descendants of slaves, represented a government nowhere near the level of the Nazi regime that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Under the Confederate flag, men fought for many of their own personal reasons. Preserving the institution of slavery was a national consequence of their service in the Confederate army and navy. But these guys fought predominantly because they were expected to. Sons followed fathers, brothers followed each other, cousins followed cousins, and neighbors followed neighbors off to war. It was believed to be the right thing to do, because their states needed their service.
I do not speak for the slaveowners of the period, but I daresay that however misguided their beliefs were on liberty and who was entitled to it, history shows that they generally took care of the things they owned; including, and especially, their slave property. Although paternalistic and patronizing in their view of the African race, Southern slaveowners weren't the murderers that led and carried out the orders of Germany's Third Reich.
Furthermore, slaveowners of the period took up arms to preserve their Constitutional right to own property--yes, even slave property--which they felt was being infringed upon with laws meant to keep them out of the new territories west of the Mississippi River. They genuinely felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, and that few in the federal government were willing to defend those rights. However mistaken we may feel today about the antebellum South's view of human property, the fact remains that certain human beings were property in the United States until after the end of the Civil War. This property was recognized in and protected by the United States Constitution.
Playing devil's advocate here, put yourself in the shoes of a Southern plantation owner of the period, and ask yourself what would you do if a government overtly denied your right to property by saying you couldn't have this property or that property with you if you wished to move to a new territory? Would you think perhaps the government was preparing to eventually take away this property from you outright?
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe humans should be slaves to other humans. But, in playing devil's advocate, I think my point is made.
Slaveowners weren't the monsters that the members of the Nazi Regime proved themselves to be. And their flags? Two different flags for two different times, reasons, and circumstances. Not the same.
Now, about the Confederate flag coming down: There are multiple reasons given in support of this argument. One is that the flag supports a period in our history in which racism from one group of people held another down. A second reason is that the Confederate flag represents rebellion against the United States government. I see the points of both arguments.
However, do we really want to open this can of worms? Should we take down all flags flown in support of the American Revolution fought 240 years ago? These flags represented rebellion against an established government, and the families of many Continentals owned slaves.
If we take down the Confederate flag, then we ought not ever fly the Spirit of 76 flag, the Gadsden Flag, or the Liberty Tree flag, because these were symbols of wreckless, oftentimes violent rebellion against a civil governing authority. And some of the people who fought under them were slaveowners, family of slaveowners, or who endorsed and embraced the institution.
As a matter of fact, if memory serves me correctly, slavery remained legal in the United States until December 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. This occurred nearly three years after slaves had been set free in the Confederate Southern states by the Emancipation Proclamation. (January 1, 1863) Ultimately, then, slavery legally existed longer in the United States than it did in the Confederate States.
And, so, it begs the question: Why not the uproar over the United States flag, the banner under which slavery was protected even after it was outlawed in rebelling states?
This is not the time to be hypocritical. If we are going to remove one flag, and deny the First Amendment on grounds that it is hurtful, then we ought to remove all symbols ever associated with hurtful activities, such as slavery.
Should American Indian tribes be allowed to tear down the Stars and Stripes because it symbolizes the hatred of white society over their ancestors? How about the civil and military oppression suffered by numerous Indian tribes throughout the 19th Century as thousands were marched away from their homes and placed on reservations? Would not the American flag be hurtful or offensive to Indian tribes? What if the tribes wish to follow suit, after the Confederate flag is successfully removed from statehouses, and demand that the American flag be taken down on their reservations for the same reason identified by black Americans? Heck, American Indians living off the reservation might still find offense to the flag flying wherever it does, and demand it be removed.
If the Confederate flag can be removed or banned because it is offensive and hurtful to others, then why not Old Glory itself?
Do we really want to go down this road, this slippery slope? Do we really want to open this can of worms? Precedents can have very damaging cascading effects not unlike a trail of dominoes that fall after one is knocked over.
I advise caution and restraint in the midst of angry passion. White-hot anger is dangerous, even deadly. The victims of the shooting at the South Carolina church are proof of that. How much more white-hot anger should we be fanning? How many more deaths must occur before reason and rationale take the place of passionate anger?
If the Confederate flag can be removed, other things can, too. It won't stop with just one thing. Kind of like the butterfly effect, something else always seems to happen in consequence.
Count on it, America.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
What's in a name...
...says a lot about a name.
As a lifelong Washington Redskins fan, I have mixed feelings about the renewed push to force the National Football League franchise to change its name.
On the one hand, I'm not opposed to changing the team's name. The term "redskin," after all, is well-known as a derogatory racial reference. I can think of a more dignified name that brings honor both to the members of the franchise and those represented in the team's logo.
How about the Washington Braves? Before the Redskins moved to Washington, D.C., and before the team was called the Redskins, they were known as the Boston Braves. The name "brave" harkens back not only to the long established heritage of eastern American Indian tribes, but also gives honorable reference to the men and women over the centuries who have defended their country and the nation's capital in the name of essential liberty.
That said, I don't want to see the Redskins' logo changed. It is very dignified, and in my humble opinion, there is no better mascot to elicit strength and courage than an American Indian warrior.
Hmmm... the Washington Warriors? That's got possibilities, too.
Either way, I think the team needs to retain its American Indian mascot. To change the team completely would upset a lot of us Redskins fans who are not only fond of the mascot, but its color scheme, and all of the great professional players who performed under its badging.
On the other hand, I feel like we've been down this road many times before in the past. Politicians of some variety or another take an active interest in the team's name, push for change, and then drop it when more pressing or important matters concerning their re-election surface.
The issue of the Redskins' name has been a point of contention for many years. Concern waxes and wanes, comes and goes, and fluctuates like a case of indigestion. Once the sour milk has passed and we feel better, we forget about what upset our stomachs in the first place; until somebody opens the carton of sour milk again, and it hits our olfactory senses, reminding us of the stench.
Ours is such a fickle, fleeting society. Perhaps "hypocrite" best describes American popular culture. We express outrage over a name that we say is disparaging. Then we turn right around and use disparaging language toward our fellow man as casually as we say hello.
We get upset over a name that marginalizes people. But we don't show any concern over television networks, dating web sites, other media, and even financial programs that target specific individuals based on their skin color: Back Entertainment Television, www.blackdating.com, race-based scholarships, etc.
In fact, how unfair is it that the American Indian can clamor for a change in the name of a professional sports team, and it can get away with blatant racial discrimination? Read a want ad from tribal government, and you'll often see the phrase "Native Americans/Indians preferred."
I'm sorry, but how racially just is that? They'd rather have one of their own than lift their prejudices and intolerances toward anyone outside of their ethnic gene pool.
But I digress: Returning to the issue of the Redskins, I think it is ironic that some American Indian tribes are leading the charge to change the team's name when I see individual Indians wearing Redskins apparel and memorabilia.
In two visits to Albuquerque, NM, the most common sports team apparel I observed worn by local Indians was the Washington Redskins. I've seen Redskins apparel on local Indians here on Northern Nevada reservations, too. It is uncanny.
If the Washington Redskins are so offensive, then why do so many Indians choose to wear the team's apparel? Don't they know that "redskin" is an offensive name? Maybe they didn't get the memo from their representatives in Washington, D.C.
It seems obvious to me that we have greater problems in our country than the name of a sports team. Problems that involve a lack of a moral compass, degenerate behavior, and desensitization to violence. Personally, I think our efforts need to be focused on what is really wrong in our nation's cultural fabric, and fixing that. We can also choose to look at all of the good that members of the Redskins team do for their respective communities.
If the Skins do change their name, it will only bother me if their entire identity changes with it. As someone with a small percentage of American Indian blood in me (which goes back several generations) I can empathize with the way that a disparaging name is perceived.
But I also believe in the old "sticks and stones" saying I memorized as a kid. Seems like our culture has forgotten that important mantra. Instead, we let names irritate and agitate us when they shouldn't.
By the way: I refuse to refer to American Indians as "Native Americans." It insults me and every other non-Indian American who was born here, and whose generations before them were born here. I'm as much a "native" American as any full, half or quarter-blooded Indian is.
But that is a discussion for another time, and in another blog post. Stay tuned.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
SITYS
"Guns don't kill people; people kill people."
Or so the clichéd and oft-quoted axiom goes.
Love it or hate it, there's a lot of truth in the saying.
Last week's knife attack at a Pittsburgh area high school that injured about 20 people is yet another clear reminder that weapons aren't responsible for human destruction, but rather the humans using them.
I hate to say this to those who have been stuck in the gun-ban gear, but, see, I told you so.
I've said multiple times before that if we ban guns, then those who are bent on destruction will simply find and use other objects to carry out their violent intentions.
This is the second major knife attack in as many years. The last one was at a Texas college in 2012.
Will our benevolent leaders and government authorities ever be convinced that we cannot legislate our way to solutions to an intrinsic, pervasive cultural problem?
Banning firearms certainly didn't prevent the knife attacks from being carried out. And, banning knives now won't prevent another student from assembling a pipe bomb and stashing it in his locker until he is ready to detonate it in between classes when the hallways are crowded.
We cannot merely treat the symptoms and hope to cure the disease. But that is exactly what civil leadership is doing when it proposes legislation to limit or restrict weapons. If we ban this weapon, then that one, and then another one, then all we are doing, in effect, is treating the symptoms of a much deeper disease. The real problem is never addressed; only its effects.
If we are ever to get a handle on the why's and how's of solving America's violence problem, then we must summon the courage to probe deeper than the surface. Far below in the depths a cancerous tumor grows. We cannot see it. We can only see its effects on the surface of the body.
It is much easier to treat the symptoms, and feel better about ourselves that we were able to do something, than it is to dig underneath only to find things that we don't want to see.
But it is imperative that this be done if we are going to meet the problem head on, and have any hope of getting a handle on it.
This means having to reflect on society and our culture as a whole, to see the bigger picture hidden under layers of bandages that we've placed over the wound that is now infected.
We thought we could just put a Band-Aid over the wound to cover it up, so that we wouldn't have to look at its ugliness. And when that bandage became soaked with blood, we just replaced it with another. And another. And another. Until the wound became infected and now the problem is more wide-spread and life-threatening than it was at the beginning.
America's self-serving and humanistic culture has much to do with the deterioration of morals and values that place a premium on life. People today are not much better than wandering zombies; hollow bodies without any internal substance. Life to them has been all about the acquisition of materialism, stroking the ego, instant gratification, and the pursuit of power, position and money.
Many people today lack a moral compass. Their spirits are all but dead, and the only thing that separates their actions from those of animals is that humans know when they are doing wrong.
But when the messages we receive from popular media is that nothing really matters, then who cares? What does it matter? We are born, we live, we die and feed the worms.
Until or unless Americans summon the courage to attack the viruses of apathy and spiritual agnosticism, we will never find the deeper answers to the problems that are seemingly out of our limited line of sight.
There will be other mass violence attacks: Be them with guns, knives, bombs, vehicles, or vials of deadly germs. We cannot afford to focus on the symptoms any longer. To rid our body of the cancer within, we must attack it straight up and head on. We must be prepared for how uncomfortable and difficult cancer treatment can be. But to do nothing to the tumor only encourages it to grow.
Our nation cannot bear the consequences of doing nothing for much longer. If we are not careful, we risk imploding and collapsing from within.
There is no greater enemy to the self than the self. No weapons necessary save for the destructive thoughts of pride, ego and apathy.
Or so the clichéd and oft-quoted axiom goes.
Love it or hate it, there's a lot of truth in the saying.
Last week's knife attack at a Pittsburgh area high school that injured about 20 people is yet another clear reminder that weapons aren't responsible for human destruction, but rather the humans using them.
I hate to say this to those who have been stuck in the gun-ban gear, but, see, I told you so.
I've said multiple times before that if we ban guns, then those who are bent on destruction will simply find and use other objects to carry out their violent intentions.
This is the second major knife attack in as many years. The last one was at a Texas college in 2012.
Will our benevolent leaders and government authorities ever be convinced that we cannot legislate our way to solutions to an intrinsic, pervasive cultural problem?
Banning firearms certainly didn't prevent the knife attacks from being carried out. And, banning knives now won't prevent another student from assembling a pipe bomb and stashing it in his locker until he is ready to detonate it in between classes when the hallways are crowded.
We cannot merely treat the symptoms and hope to cure the disease. But that is exactly what civil leadership is doing when it proposes legislation to limit or restrict weapons. If we ban this weapon, then that one, and then another one, then all we are doing, in effect, is treating the symptoms of a much deeper disease. The real problem is never addressed; only its effects.
If we are ever to get a handle on the why's and how's of solving America's violence problem, then we must summon the courage to probe deeper than the surface. Far below in the depths a cancerous tumor grows. We cannot see it. We can only see its effects on the surface of the body.
It is much easier to treat the symptoms, and feel better about ourselves that we were able to do something, than it is to dig underneath only to find things that we don't want to see.
But it is imperative that this be done if we are going to meet the problem head on, and have any hope of getting a handle on it.
This means having to reflect on society and our culture as a whole, to see the bigger picture hidden under layers of bandages that we've placed over the wound that is now infected.
We thought we could just put a Band-Aid over the wound to cover it up, so that we wouldn't have to look at its ugliness. And when that bandage became soaked with blood, we just replaced it with another. And another. And another. Until the wound became infected and now the problem is more wide-spread and life-threatening than it was at the beginning.
America's self-serving and humanistic culture has much to do with the deterioration of morals and values that place a premium on life. People today are not much better than wandering zombies; hollow bodies without any internal substance. Life to them has been all about the acquisition of materialism, stroking the ego, instant gratification, and the pursuit of power, position and money.
Many people today lack a moral compass. Their spirits are all but dead, and the only thing that separates their actions from those of animals is that humans know when they are doing wrong.
But when the messages we receive from popular media is that nothing really matters, then who cares? What does it matter? We are born, we live, we die and feed the worms.
Until or unless Americans summon the courage to attack the viruses of apathy and spiritual agnosticism, we will never find the deeper answers to the problems that are seemingly out of our limited line of sight.
There will be other mass violence attacks: Be them with guns, knives, bombs, vehicles, or vials of deadly germs. We cannot afford to focus on the symptoms any longer. To rid our body of the cancer within, we must attack it straight up and head on. We must be prepared for how uncomfortable and difficult cancer treatment can be. But to do nothing to the tumor only encourages it to grow.
Our nation cannot bear the consequences of doing nothing for much longer. If we are not careful, we risk imploding and collapsing from within.
There is no greater enemy to the self than the self. No weapons necessary save for the destructive thoughts of pride, ego and apathy.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Sexual hypocrisy
For the past several months, the television news media appears to have been falling all over itself covering the supposed wild popularity of the "Fifty Shades of Grey" franchise. Morning show co-hosts, both male and female, can't seem to contain their excitement over production of the first "Fifty Shades" movie due out some time next year.
In an era of high sexual perversion, I'm not at all surprised that the kinky, dark side of sex is being exploited, glamourized and sensationalized. However, I do find it surprising that mainstream media is embracing this darker side of popular culture given heightened vigilance society has toward sexual crimes and misconduct.
In a single morning show episode, NBC's "Today Show" co-hosts debated the appropriateness of a Colorado school district suspending a six-year-old boy for kissing a girl on the hand, while excitedly anticipating the upcoming release of the first "Fifty Shades" movie.
How can we say in one breath that what the little boy did was inappropriate, and in the next exclaim how excited we are to see a sexually explicit movie about bondage and domination? It makes absolutely no sense. It is absurd.
We chastize a little boy for committing sexual harassment, simply for kissing a little girl's hand; something that was a show of respect in times gone by. But we turn right around and act like a bunch of giddy school kids awaiting a movie that we want to see because it speaks to our inner desires.
The hypocrisy over the way our culture views sex and sexual expression couldn't be more evident.
We chide people for their public expressions of romance, calling such actions harassment. But we embrace "tolerance" and open-mindedness when it comes to sexual expression in art.
We cheer artistic sexual expression, but we ignore how these messages can get conveyed by viewers, readers and consumers of such. We seem appalled when consumers translate this expression in public.
Really?
Seems to me like a natural consequence.
If we say it's okay to promote alternative sexual lifestyles, but not okay to act them out publicly, where is the rationale in that? If it's okay to promote sex, but not okay to act out sex, what sense does this make?
I agree that acting out sex publicly can be very destructive and should be discouraged. But so should the explicit and implicit messages that our culture sends people through art and expression.
It makes no rational sense at all to condemn an act but embrace the message that can influence an act.
But that's what human culture does. We want it all: The ability to express ourselves without restraint, but then we want the ability to regulate our actions.
Until we recognize that thoughts influence actions, I doubt humanity will ever see its hypocrisy.
In an era of high sexual perversion, I'm not at all surprised that the kinky, dark side of sex is being exploited, glamourized and sensationalized. However, I do find it surprising that mainstream media is embracing this darker side of popular culture given heightened vigilance society has toward sexual crimes and misconduct.
In a single morning show episode, NBC's "Today Show" co-hosts debated the appropriateness of a Colorado school district suspending a six-year-old boy for kissing a girl on the hand, while excitedly anticipating the upcoming release of the first "Fifty Shades" movie.
How can we say in one breath that what the little boy did was inappropriate, and in the next exclaim how excited we are to see a sexually explicit movie about bondage and domination? It makes absolutely no sense. It is absurd.
We chastize a little boy for committing sexual harassment, simply for kissing a little girl's hand; something that was a show of respect in times gone by. But we turn right around and act like a bunch of giddy school kids awaiting a movie that we want to see because it speaks to our inner desires.
The hypocrisy over the way our culture views sex and sexual expression couldn't be more evident.
We chide people for their public expressions of romance, calling such actions harassment. But we embrace "tolerance" and open-mindedness when it comes to sexual expression in art.
We cheer artistic sexual expression, but we ignore how these messages can get conveyed by viewers, readers and consumers of such. We seem appalled when consumers translate this expression in public.
Really?
Seems to me like a natural consequence.
If we say it's okay to promote alternative sexual lifestyles, but not okay to act them out publicly, where is the rationale in that? If it's okay to promote sex, but not okay to act out sex, what sense does this make?
I agree that acting out sex publicly can be very destructive and should be discouraged. But so should the explicit and implicit messages that our culture sends people through art and expression.
It makes no rational sense at all to condemn an act but embrace the message that can influence an act.
But that's what human culture does. We want it all: The ability to express ourselves without restraint, but then we want the ability to regulate our actions.
Until we recognize that thoughts influence actions, I doubt humanity will ever see its hypocrisy.
Compassion...journalist style
About a month ago, news about the Justice Department's official report on the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting was released. Survivors and victims' families were given the opportunity to view the government's final report. It was entirely voluntary, and no one was required to read the findings.
At the time, NBC "Today Show" co-host Matt Lauer reported that the network had made the decision not to air the findings out of respect for the victims' families. Then, in his next breath, Lauer commented that NBC made this decision because there was nothing new in the report. Because there was nothing new, it wasn't worth revealing publicly, and better to respect the feelings of the survivors and victims' families.
So, ultimately, NBC's decision was not made out of a measure of compassion toward those most directly affected by the massacre. Rather, it was made for pragmatic, practical reasons. There wasn't anything new, exciting or revealing in the report to waste NBC's precious air time with; so why bother? Instead, let's respect the victims' families and the survivors by not airing the details of the report.
However, if there had been something new in the report, then the victims' families and survivors be damned. The media would have aired these details despite any feelings about it, and irrespective of compassion toward those most affected by the event.
In my experience, journalists can be among the most callous and desensitized professionals in the business world. More ruthless than a commodities buyer or speculator. More heartless than a corporate executive whose company runs a sweat shop. More inhuman than a software engineer who talks to computers all day.
I know this, because I was a journalist for a decade. I saw first-hand just how separated from reality these people can be.
I remember my first year working in a news room. It was around 11 p.m., and one reporter was listening intently to traffic on a police scanner. The night had been a very slow one as news was concerned. Editors were worried about what their lead front-page story would be. Maybe coverage of a local quilt show? A high school sporting event? Something soft and not very intriguing.
Then, a few minutes later, traffic over the scanner indicated an automobile accident on the highway outside of town. The dispatcher reported to the responding officers that there may be a fatality.
Suddenly, the reporter came alive and with wide eyes and a smile on his face, he exclaimed, "Yes! There's our front page!"
I couldn't believe my ears. He was cheering over a fatal car accident? Who, in their right mind, would do such a thing?
The answer: A journalist.
I resolved at that moment not to ever let myself get so desensitized by my work that I would come to regard human beings and the things that happen to them as just words on a page, a headline, a tag line, a photograph that sells newspapers, magazines and air time.
The NBC decision not to air the final report on Newtown was equally as callous as the reporter rejoicing over a car accident. There wasn't anything new to report, so we will respect the feelings of survivors and families. But that wouldn't be the case if there was something new to report.
In other words, feelings and compassion are only important when it doesn't compete with "journalistic responsibility." I call this journalistic zeal; not responsibility.
Responsibility is acting on and exercising conscience. Something the news media rarely, if ever, does when ethics compete with a juicy story.
I'm just a little bit tired of the phony "compassion" displayed by news journalists. They relish in making themselves appear compassionate, tolerant and empathetic. But this ruse lasts only as long as there isn't something "new" to report on. Then these bastions of humanity become barricudas.
It is a frighteningly quick transformation, because a journalist can turn from a warm-blooded human being into a cold-blooded viper faster than Clark Kent stripped to his Superman suit in the telephone booth.
I struggle daily to respect news journalists because of their disingenuousness. I was too honest, too real, and didn't have enough onion layers on me to survive long enough as a news professional. I was too human, and not zealous enough.
Thank God for that.
At the time, NBC "Today Show" co-host Matt Lauer reported that the network had made the decision not to air the findings out of respect for the victims' families. Then, in his next breath, Lauer commented that NBC made this decision because there was nothing new in the report. Because there was nothing new, it wasn't worth revealing publicly, and better to respect the feelings of the survivors and victims' families.
So, ultimately, NBC's decision was not made out of a measure of compassion toward those most directly affected by the massacre. Rather, it was made for pragmatic, practical reasons. There wasn't anything new, exciting or revealing in the report to waste NBC's precious air time with; so why bother? Instead, let's respect the victims' families and the survivors by not airing the details of the report.
However, if there had been something new in the report, then the victims' families and survivors be damned. The media would have aired these details despite any feelings about it, and irrespective of compassion toward those most affected by the event.
In my experience, journalists can be among the most callous and desensitized professionals in the business world. More ruthless than a commodities buyer or speculator. More heartless than a corporate executive whose company runs a sweat shop. More inhuman than a software engineer who talks to computers all day.
I know this, because I was a journalist for a decade. I saw first-hand just how separated from reality these people can be.
I remember my first year working in a news room. It was around 11 p.m., and one reporter was listening intently to traffic on a police scanner. The night had been a very slow one as news was concerned. Editors were worried about what their lead front-page story would be. Maybe coverage of a local quilt show? A high school sporting event? Something soft and not very intriguing.
Then, a few minutes later, traffic over the scanner indicated an automobile accident on the highway outside of town. The dispatcher reported to the responding officers that there may be a fatality.
Suddenly, the reporter came alive and with wide eyes and a smile on his face, he exclaimed, "Yes! There's our front page!"
I couldn't believe my ears. He was cheering over a fatal car accident? Who, in their right mind, would do such a thing?
The answer: A journalist.
I resolved at that moment not to ever let myself get so desensitized by my work that I would come to regard human beings and the things that happen to them as just words on a page, a headline, a tag line, a photograph that sells newspapers, magazines and air time.
The NBC decision not to air the final report on Newtown was equally as callous as the reporter rejoicing over a car accident. There wasn't anything new to report, so we will respect the feelings of survivors and families. But that wouldn't be the case if there was something new to report.
In other words, feelings and compassion are only important when it doesn't compete with "journalistic responsibility." I call this journalistic zeal; not responsibility.
Responsibility is acting on and exercising conscience. Something the news media rarely, if ever, does when ethics compete with a juicy story.
I'm just a little bit tired of the phony "compassion" displayed by news journalists. They relish in making themselves appear compassionate, tolerant and empathetic. But this ruse lasts only as long as there isn't something "new" to report on. Then these bastions of humanity become barricudas.
It is a frighteningly quick transformation, because a journalist can turn from a warm-blooded human being into a cold-blooded viper faster than Clark Kent stripped to his Superman suit in the telephone booth.
I struggle daily to respect news journalists because of their disingenuousness. I was too honest, too real, and didn't have enough onion layers on me to survive long enough as a news professional. I was too human, and not zealous enough.
Thank God for that.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Serious journalism...
...versus not so serious.
The distinction can be summed up by the difference between the Wall Street Journal and the National Enquirer.
Serious journalism is the gathering, organizing and reporting of information without all of the fru-fru. It is about communication; moving information from one source to another. Serious journalism can be dry, bland and boring. But it has a practical, functional purpose behind it.
There is a world of difference between the journalistic approaches of the nightly news casts and the morning shows that air on the alphabet networks; like the difference between an ice-cream cone and a hot-fudge sundae.
One is basic, and the other super sugar-coated. One is serious, and the other light-hearted. One is hard news, the other soft. One is structured, and the other laissez-faire. One is about delivering information, the other entertainment.
I don't mind so much the light-hearted nature of the morning shows. But I resent the hosts calling themselves journalists.
Bologne.
If they are at all journalists, they are overly fancied versions. They are entertainers on the level of Ed Sullivan, Johnny Carson, and Jay Leno.
The difference between Brian Williams of the NBC Nightly News and Matt Lauer of the NBC Today Show is like the distinction between a sales representative and a used car salesman. While both are salespeople, one is focused on profession while the other on showmanship.
Jerry Rice and Deion Sanders are good comparisons. Both were professional athletes; but Rice took his profession more seriously. The football field was his office. For Sanders, it was a stage upon which to show off. Rice was a worker; Sanders a showman.
The same can be said about Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal. The former was a hard-working professional on the court, while the other was more of a showman.
Lauer is not a serious journalist. He's a showman. If he was, then he wouldn't be content to hosting a soft-news driven morning show, and would have ambitions of anchoring a nightly news broadcast. While I don't feel his former co-host, Katie Couric, was a particularly effective or serious journalist, either, she at least had the ambition to seek a more serious position in her profession; even though it didn't last.
Call me a morning show humbug, but I just am not impressed with these programs as premier journalistic venues. I really don't mind them being light-hearted and soft in their approaches. But I think it is a misnomer to really consider morning shows as serious journalism.
Of all of the hosts on the three networks in the morning, only Al Roker fits the bill of a morning show host. He's naturally funny and light-hearted; the way morning shows are designed to be. But he's also a meteorologist; a weather man. He doesn't fancy himself as a journalist.
Morning show hosts are entertainers above all. They are not journalists. Their job is to present information in an entertaining fashion; not to report it and pass it on.
If you want to see serious journalism in action, watch your local news broadcasts. If you want entertainment, then watch the morning shows. But don't think for a minute that these morning show hosts pass for serious journalists.
Serious journalists aren't content to write gossip columns for the rest of their career any more than broadcasters are content to host entertainment programs rather than news casts for the remainder of their careers.
You morning show people have traded serious journalism for entertainment. All fine and dandy.
Just do us all a favor and don't call yourselves serious journalists; because you're not.
The distinction can be summed up by the difference between the Wall Street Journal and the National Enquirer.
Serious journalism is the gathering, organizing and reporting of information without all of the fru-fru. It is about communication; moving information from one source to another. Serious journalism can be dry, bland and boring. But it has a practical, functional purpose behind it.
There is a world of difference between the journalistic approaches of the nightly news casts and the morning shows that air on the alphabet networks; like the difference between an ice-cream cone and a hot-fudge sundae.
One is basic, and the other super sugar-coated. One is serious, and the other light-hearted. One is hard news, the other soft. One is structured, and the other laissez-faire. One is about delivering information, the other entertainment.
I don't mind so much the light-hearted nature of the morning shows. But I resent the hosts calling themselves journalists.
Bologne.
If they are at all journalists, they are overly fancied versions. They are entertainers on the level of Ed Sullivan, Johnny Carson, and Jay Leno.
The difference between Brian Williams of the NBC Nightly News and Matt Lauer of the NBC Today Show is like the distinction between a sales representative and a used car salesman. While both are salespeople, one is focused on profession while the other on showmanship.
Jerry Rice and Deion Sanders are good comparisons. Both were professional athletes; but Rice took his profession more seriously. The football field was his office. For Sanders, it was a stage upon which to show off. Rice was a worker; Sanders a showman.
The same can be said about Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal. The former was a hard-working professional on the court, while the other was more of a showman.
Lauer is not a serious journalist. He's a showman. If he was, then he wouldn't be content to hosting a soft-news driven morning show, and would have ambitions of anchoring a nightly news broadcast. While I don't feel his former co-host, Katie Couric, was a particularly effective or serious journalist, either, she at least had the ambition to seek a more serious position in her profession; even though it didn't last.
Call me a morning show humbug, but I just am not impressed with these programs as premier journalistic venues. I really don't mind them being light-hearted and soft in their approaches. But I think it is a misnomer to really consider morning shows as serious journalism.
Of all of the hosts on the three networks in the morning, only Al Roker fits the bill of a morning show host. He's naturally funny and light-hearted; the way morning shows are designed to be. But he's also a meteorologist; a weather man. He doesn't fancy himself as a journalist.
Morning show hosts are entertainers above all. They are not journalists. Their job is to present information in an entertaining fashion; not to report it and pass it on.
If you want to see serious journalism in action, watch your local news broadcasts. If you want entertainment, then watch the morning shows. But don't think for a minute that these morning show hosts pass for serious journalists.
Serious journalists aren't content to write gossip columns for the rest of their career any more than broadcasters are content to host entertainment programs rather than news casts for the remainder of their careers.
You morning show people have traded serious journalism for entertainment. All fine and dandy.
Just do us all a favor and don't call yourselves serious journalists; because you're not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
