10.04.11
Posted in History, Hmmm Moments at 12:41 am by Administrator
Whether you love him or hate him, he always makes for interesting listening. Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit that he’s familiar with world history and has an analytical mind. While I do think he makes some very reasonable assertions and provocative statements (some might call it inflammatory), when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, I can’t help but think about “taqqiya,” the Islamic belief that it’s okay to lie if it’s for the greater good of the people. Mohamed Elbaradei wrote about it in his book The Age of Deception as did Hooman Majd, author of The Ayatollah Begs to Differ. But I certainly understand the concept of fairness. If one country has nuclear power, why can’t other countries? Anyway, for anyone interested in this year’s UN speech by Ahmadinejad, click here to listen to the full speech.
As the year before, major UN members walked out on him during his speech. I personally think it’s very rude that they would do such a thing, especially since the West considers themselves so fair and civilized. I can’t help but think that they walk out on him because they know he’s right, and they don’t want to admit it. But how long can that last? There’s always a breaking point somewhere. Amongst some of the points Ahmadinejad highlighted were the following:
Who triggered the first and second world wars, that left seventy million killed and hundreds of millions injured or homeless. Who created the wars in Korean peninsula and in Vietnam?
· Who imposed through Zionism and over sixty years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian people and on countries of the region?
· Who imposed and supported for decades military dictatorship and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African, and Latin American nations?
· Who used nuclear bomb against defenseless people, and stockpiled thousands of warheads in their arsenals?
· Whose economies rely on waging wars and selling arms?
· Who provoked and encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade and impose an eight-year war on Iran, and who assisted and equipped him to deploy chemical weapons against our cities and our people?
· Who used the mysterious September 11 incident as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, killing, injuring, and displacing millions in two countries with the ultimate goal of bringing into its domination the Middle East and its oil resources?
· Who nullified the Breton Woods system by printing trillions of dollars without the backing of gold reserves or equivalent currency? A move that triggered inflation worldwide and was intended to prey on the economic gains of other nations?
· Which country’s military spending exceeds annually a thousand billion dollars, more than the military budgets of all countries of the world combined?
· Who dominates the policy-making establishments of the world economy?
· Who are responsible for the world economic recession, and are imposing the consequences on America, Europe and the world in general?
· Who are the ones dominating the Security Council which is ostensibly responsible for safeguarding the international security?
The man knows his history and clearly articulates his points. He was just asking questions of which anyone who knows this history would know the answers to his questions. The answers are not secrets, but well known facts, so why did they walk out on him? Obviously it wasn’t because he was lying. The mass walkout just makes it more obvious that there’s something rotten in Denmark.
Marlakins
Permalink
09.11.11
Posted in History, Hmmm Moments, cross stitching at 11:29 pm by Administrator
Today was the ten year anniversary of the bombing of the Trade Center. Like a lot of other people, I spent a good deal of the day watching 9/11 related videos. There’s quite a bit out there on YouTube. And since I tend to have a bit of ADD, I had to do some crafting while watching. Not sure why, but I noticed I can pay better attention to things when my hands are doing something like crafting. Strange, but anyway, here’s what I was working on today.
The patterns are by The Praire Schooler called Starry Night stitched on 18 count aida.
The whole 9/11 incident is very sad to revisit. Not only has it been tragic for all victims of the Trade Towers and flight passengers, but also for the countless civilian victims in Iraq and Afghanistan who had no connection to any of those hijackers. I know the bombing of the trade center was terrible, but striking back and killing other civilians doesn’t make it right. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Imagine how little control a person like myself has on our government, but yet our government conducts many acts that I would not approve of. I think of how easily civilians like myself could be targets of those who despise the actions of our government even though I have little sway in our government’s decisions. And I think of all those “rules of engagement” that always seem to be violated whenever countries go to war. It’s the civilians who suffer.
The other lure to watching 9/11 videos is all the “conspiracy” theories out there. The latest one that I found interesting has been put forward by Judy Wood. She has written a book called, Where Did the Towers Go? She claims that she doesn’t have a “theory” of what happened, but only examines the “evidence.” One example video with Judy Wood is at this link. She definitely puts forward a lot of food for thought regarding what happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11.
Marlakins
Permalink
06.26.11
Posted in Anything goes, Book Reviews, Hmmm Moments, humor at 12:10 am by Administrator
Last week I was driving along when I found myself behind this vehicle . .
I couldn’t help but notice something unusual mounted on the back spare tire. Here’s a closer shot. . .
Yikes! That was not a picture! It was a taxidermed head of what, I’m not sure. This is the first time I’ve seen such a thing. Yes, I’ve seen taxidermed animals before, but not one mounted on a spare tire. Maybe because I live in the city, this is unusual to me, I don’t know. At first I thought it was a fox, but I think it’s illegal to hunt those, so I think this is a dog? I didn’t grow up doing or seeing this kind of thing, so it’s a bit weird to me, and thus why I had to take a picture of it.
Okay, so I didn’t see anything else unusual that day. We just went out to lunch at a Mexican restaurant and did a little shopping. I’m still working on another one of my cross stitch projects and reading some of the library books I checked out. I’ve slowed down on the Hiroshima in America book because I ran into the portion where the author seems to be psychoanalyzing Truman to determine what his thought process was in deciding to go ahead and use the atomic bomb on Japan. Personally, it’s easier for me to just read the known facts and perhaps even use those facts to try to speculate why something was done but, I have a hard time psychoanalyzing people. I would make a terrible shrink! So instead I have been spending more time reading Weller’s writings from First Into Nagasaki. Included in the book is part of a daily diary written by a U.S. Marine who, along with a friend, managed to hide out on Wake Island after the Japanese took control of it.
Wake Island is very small, and there were about 3,000 Japanese troops occupying the island during the writing of Scotty’s diary (one of the two Marines, the other being Stevens). That made it tricky for those two Americans to evade capture, but they managed to hide out for about three months before turning themselves in. While they hid, Scotty wrote a daily diary. I found it quite interesting because it explained how the two men managed to hide and find food while the Japanese troops were literally all around them, almost stepping on them at times! They basically laid down all day long, then scrounged for food late at night and buried the cans (when the Japanese bombed Wake Island, the military rations got strewn all over the place). Luckily for them they had plenty of food that way, although he did complain that they were lacking starch, which he believed added to his weakness. Of course everything was canned, too, so I bet that didn’t help, either. One thing I couldn’t help noticing was at even amongst the danger and fear, these guys still managed to have a sense of humor. I found that while reading other books of POW accounts. Here’s one daily entry that I found humorous.
“Feb 4
Fred has a hunch help is coming soon–first time he has been optimistic about it. With planes up all morning half the day is licked, which is something to us as we are living from hour to hour now. Little lizards crawl over us catching flies. They are so tame now we have to brush them off while writing. Their heads and bodies are just 2 in. long and tails about 3 in., dark brown with three gold stripes from end to end of body. There are six on me as I write and I love them. One has a purple tail and one little fellow is speckled an has not stripes–I guess he’s just a private.”
Tee hee! Funny.
So I’m about 3/4ths of the way through the book and have just started the section regarding the “Hellships.” I had read a little about that from other sources, so I’m interested to learn what else others reported.
Okay, so other than that I’ve just been doing the regular family stuffs. I’ve been a bit disappointed with how the media has forgotten all about the Fukushima disaster and hasn’t updated much on the condition of the Nebraska nuclear plants, either. It has forced me to scour the internet for any info on those plants, which seems like such a shame. Normal citizens are doing the work that paid journalists should be doing. I saw “nothing” in our TV networks regarding the nuclear protests in Japan. It was only through the internet and home videos that I saw anything about those protests. At least Italy and Germany have come to their senses and are making the effort to go nuclear-free. The U.S., on the other hand, acts like nothing is wrong. Where are all the “environmentalists?” They seem very silent on this issue. . .
Marlakins
Permalink
05.25.11
Posted in Church Issues and Bible Interpretations, Hmmm Moments, Uncategorized, family stuff at 1:04 am by Administrator
Yesterday I spent time sorting through my “things.” We all have hobbies in this house, so there tends to be lots of “things” to sort and organize here. And it made me start to think (again) about all the people who have been displaced from their homes with hardly any of their personal possessions. I was just looking up info on the millions of displaced people in Pakistan due to the 2010 flood. And of course I thought of the Japanese who have been displaced due to the tsunami and nuclear disaster. I thought of the hundreds of thousands of people displaced in the Ivory Coast, and now of the hundreds of people affected by the floods in the Mississippi region and thousands in Joplin, Missouri. . . There are so many people now who are out without their usual comforts. I know I thought about it when we had fires here in the Los Angeles county as well and that really spurred me to organize my stuff because if there were a warning to leave the house, I wanted to be able to grab stuff quickly and go. But a lot of my “things” would be left behind. I am reminded of how these things are not that important.
I’m not really sure what I want to say. I guess I’m just wondering again about why things are and why God does things or allows things. Why is it that some people have had to endure so much suffering? I guess we all suffer to some degree, but I have never had a day go by where I have not had sufficient food to eat. I’ve never lived through a war zone. I’ve never been displaced. I’m not rich or anything, but I do live very comfortably. It’s not that I feel guilty or anything because it’s not like I did anything knowingly wrong to live this way. It’s just that it makes me wonder what my purpose in life is. Do I have a purpose? Brian has told me that my purpose is to serve my family. The Bible says that women will be preserved in child bearing. I know not all women have children or can have children, but it does seem to imply taking care of children. As I type this Micah 6:8 comes to mind:
“8He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”
I think back again to the thousands and even millions of people who have been displaced. Is there anything a Christian gal like me can do for them? I can’t possibly help millions of people, so what do I do with that knowledge? How can I apply Micah 6:8 to that? I’m thinking that it’s my job then is to teach my children to know these things. I need to teach them to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. And hopefully that will spread as they grow and live their lives so that everyone they come in contact with will share those things. And maybe in that way some needy people will be reached. We can’t all be Rambos or Florence Nightingales. But then again, the Bible doesn’t require that of all of us. But it does require all of us to be just, merciful, and humble.
Marlakins
Permalink
07.04.10
Posted in Hmmm Moments at 11:26 am by Administrator
I wasn’t intending to blog today, but I just happened to come across an article that moved me to write. I will admit that by the time I had heard about the Tea Parties, the concept had already been hijacked by other parties, and I didn’t realize until much later that the “original” Tea Party movement was started by Ron Paul. It has since morphed into something much different when now Sarah Palin’s name seems to get linked to the Tea Party, and strangely enough, her foreign policy stance is much different than Ron Paul’s. Compare Palin’s foreign policy beliefs (the woman is a domineering warmonger who needs to study up on her own country’s foreign involvement and policy history) to Paul’s, and one can easily see there is a “striking” difference. Here’s a clip of an example of Paul’s position in dealing with foreign countries such as Iran.
Sad that Ron Paul started the Tea Party, but the likes of Palin have hijacked it with her contrary and destructive ideas. I may not agree with everything Paul stands for, but certainly I agree with much more with him than Palin. Wish I didn’t stumble across her article on this 4th of July (reading about Palin’s beliefs and ideas doesn’t make for an enjoyable 4th celebration). What a sad state we are in that so many people stand behind Palin’s ideas and frightening that she almost became Vice President of the U.S.A. We need more peaceful, level-headed members in our government like Ron Paul. But I guess Bible prophesy seems to point that we won’t get that.
Marlakins
Permalink
07.03.10
Posted in Historical Trivia, Hmmm Moments at 10:41 am by Administrator
About a month or two ago, there was discussion about using a nuclear bomb to close off the Gulf oil leak. I had read that the Russians had done it in the past successfully 4 out of 5 times. Supposedly they had already been doing super deep oil drilling 40 years ago and had run into these blowout problems before, however, their wells were drilled on land, not in the ocean. I had wanted to know more information about this, but hadn’t gotten around to looking it up properly. This morning I ran across this video that gave a little more information. One question I had which others had asked was how long could this leak run before it ran out? I was surprised to learn that the leak that happened in Russian in 1963 burned for “three” years, before they nuked it and got it sealed off. This seems to support the idea that these oil wells that tap super deep strata contain abiotic oil, which could last indefinitely. Check out this news report.
I don’t support nuclear power or bombs. And while it’s been shown by the Russians that it has sealed some of their out of control wells, I wonder if it could make our oil leak worse being that it’s so deep under water. So if it doesn’t work, it might make things even more difficult to control. I am curious to know what other suggestions other countries have to stem off this problem. I’m hearing that other countries have offered help, but who knows how our government is receiving those requests. I hope the relief wells work and this gulf leak doesn’t go on for three years or more! I wonder if other countries would stand that since it could eventually spread into their oceans, too, if allowed to flow too long. . . If we can’t get this in control soon, I wonder if other countries will “insist” on lending a hand for their own safety and benefit.
Marlakins
Permalink
06.29.10
Posted in Health-related--Natural Alternative Treatments, Hmmm Moments at 12:16 am by Administrator
Following along with the news on the Gulf oil spill is depressing. There’s all kinds of info and rumors running around from the relief wells being almost finished to the leak is not stoppable due to the high pressures of the leak. There’s all kinds of predictions out there, particularly dooms day predictions and even conspiracy theories. Certainly I hope they’re not right, but regardless, seeing all the oil out in the ocean and washed up on the beaches and marshes is so upsetting. Particularly heartbreaking is seeing all those birds and sea animals dying and being covered in oil and all those people who have lost their livelihoods.
When the news first hit that the rig exploded and that it was doing exploratory drilling at unprecedented depths, it crossed my mind that this leak might be the US’s Chernobyl. From my reading of The Day We Lost the H-bomb, I knew that working in deep water was no cake walk. The H-bomb that had to be recovered was at a depth of about 2,800 ft, and the military had a heck of a time recovering that one bomb. That’s why at first I could understand why Obama was leaving it to the oil company to deal with since the oil companies are likely the ones to have the best technology for oil well drilling, not the military. Yes, I know that the H-bomb recovery was back in 1969, but I just had my suspicions that our technology for this type of thing hadn’t come up that much since then. Seeing that this leak is still gushing uncontrollably, my suspicions seems to have had some merit. But now it seems that it’s not only the depth of the well that’s that problem (5,000 ft below the surface, practically twice the depth they had troubling recovering the h-bomb), but that the well was drilled so far (almost a mile down), that they hit a strata with oil that has a psi so strong that we don’t currently have the technology to stop it. And that’s why we were starting to hear about using nukes like the Russians have done to stop up several of their land wells. Supposedly it worked 4 out of 5 times, but supposedly with the geology structure of the gulf, nuking it might prove disasterous if it doesn’t work. Namely, the leak would become bigger and therefore really unstoppable. Not to mention, adding radioactivity to it would likely not help matters, either. But that’s another story, and really what I wanted to blog about was something I just happened to come across while reading and watching stuff on the current gulf oil leak.
Apparently, various gases are not the only toxic substance that comes from oil drilling. According to this video, they can also bring up radioactive material. Oye, I had not known this. Here’s a video that shows an area in Kentucky that was abandoned due to radioactivity. Evidently, the process of a common technique used for oil recovery is water flooding. The result is radioactive residues. Here’s the video I stumbled upon on Radioactive Oil Fields.
Ah, the joys of industrialization. . .
Marlakins
Permalink
06.24.10
Posted in Hmmm Moments, Uncategorized at 11:28 am by Administrator
I’m not in favor of the wars that we (the U.S.) are currently involved in. However, I do still try to keep up a little with the current events, and anyone watching or reading any news at all would be hard pressed to miss the recent fallout with General McChrystal. Oye. The first thing I thought was, “What in the world are these guys thinking?” I can’t say that I am siding on one side over the other, it’s just that the recent clash of our leaders (McChrystal vs several White House Admin people) reminds me of some of the things I’ve been reading and how, in general, there’s a lot of in-house competition and bickering. I used to think from my working days that it’s hard to work with some women because some of us tend to be pretty moody or overly sensitive and such. I “used” to think men were more level-headed and easier to work with because they didn’t get into personal grudges. However I have since found that my belief was false, and from my readings of history dealing with the military to various scientists or to our presidents, and so on, I’m seeing that men are every bit as competitive as women, and even moody and emotionally manipulated as well.
As an example of what I mean about men clashing and being competitive (to a fault, in my opinion), comes from some of the books I’ve read like Atomic America. Todd Tucker writes about the rivalry between the Air Force and the Navy (to the point the Air Force tried to render the Navy obsolete), as well as the personality clashes and discontent among the men within the Navy such as what transpired between Admiral Rickover and his peers and subordinates. Barbara Moran wrote in her book, The Day We Lost the H-Bomb, that there was conflict between the military leaders and the civilian scientists brought aboard to help locate the broken arrows. Apparently, there was competition, and what I found interesting was that (according to Moran) the military brass tended to look down upon those who have not served in the military. Now the reason that struck me as odd, and perhaps a bit hypocritical, is that we are constantly being indoctrinated to think that our military is there to protect us civilians. You know, “They fight for our freedom” and all. So why would military look down upon us civilians just because we haven’t served in the military? I mean their whole purpose for being is to protect us, yet they look down on us? Odd, I thought, but I guess that comes with pride. I was reminded of this when I read about McChrystal’s comment that, “McChrystal thought Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass. It does give me the feeling that he thinks in a “them vs us” sort of way (that is, non-military vs military).
I used to have a different outlook of our military when I read books about war veterans such as those who survived the Bataan Death March in WWII or watched movies like Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. I felt I got a glimpse of why some military men are so close to one another and keep in touch after so many years. They experience somethings together that are so strong that they can’t help but bind their lives together to some degree (after all, fighting for your life is pretty intense). They develop a brotherhood that I thought was really neat. But then there were other books that brought the other, not so pleasant side, to the surface. Those books such as Dark Sun, the Making of the Hydrogen Bomb revealed animosity, mistrust, jealousies, etc. amongst various leaders, politicians, military personnel, etc. All these men who I thought were “level” or at least more level than women turned out to be only human after all– susceptible to jealousies and other frailties of emotions. . . and the unsettling thing about it is that these are the men who lead our country and make crucial decisions for all of us spending trillions of our tax dollars and deciding the fate of untold numbers of foreigners. I think about all the “secret” programs that the military has carried out and likely still carries out. Given that so much power is afforded to a relatively few men, those few are essentially allowed to make decisions that are, at times, affected by jealousies, insecurities, mistrust, the need to dominate, etc. An example are the decisions made during WWII to make nuclear weapons and even use the atom bombs on Japan, while at the same time keeping secrets from our then ally, Russia. Those actions, which I think in part was a result of insecurities, the need to be superior, and mistrust, resulted in the cold war and the nuclear arms race that we are still struggling to control to this day. Certainly, I’m not implying this only applies to Americans, but to “all” leaders of the world. Prime examples are Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. The fate of millions were in their hands, and many died because of the fears, mistrust, need for control, and insecurities of these few men.
Now I realize the argument that there’s a lot more behind political and military decisions than just human emotions. Or is there? What else is there when it comes down to motivation? I mean if we were to say that many of our wars have the underlying goal of attaining wealth (oil, minerals, drugs, etc) and prestige, then in essence that goal was chosen because of human emotions such as greed and/or the need for power. If we say that we went to war to save the inhabitants from their dictatorial leaders, then again, the motivation would have come from compassion or concern for fellow mankind, which again is a result of human emotion. If we say we fight in wars to protect our citizens, again, it would be based on the human emotion of the need to protect the family or loved ones.
It seems to me that much of our politics runs on emotions. People strive for political and military positions based on their emotions, and others vote for them also based on their emotions. Then everyone proceeds to operate from those grounds. McChrystal, just like all the others before him and those who will come after him are only acting on their emotions. So why should I be surprised when I see top military brass acting inappropriately towards others, including their superiors? I shouldn’t be. It’s just business as usual here on planet earth.
Marlakins
Permalink
05.01.10
Posted in Historical Trivia, Hmmm Moments, humor at 12:42 am by Administrator
Just got a chuckle out of this from the Boston Globe. . .
There are just some facts of life that we conveniently forget.
Along these lines I also found an interesting article on Greg Palast’s blog titled Behind the Arizona Immigration Law: GOP Game to Swipe the November Election. He has an interesting twist to the new Arizona immigration law wherein he claims that,
“. . . The way the media plays the story, it was a wave of racist, anti-immigrant hysteria that moved Arizona Republicans to pass a sick little law, signed last week, requiring every person in the state to carry papers proving they are US citizens.
“I don’t buy it. Anti-Hispanic hysteria has always been as much a part of Arizona as the Saguaro cactus and excessive air-conditioning.
“What’s new here is not the politicians’ fear of a xenophobic “Teabag” uprising.
“What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote — and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.”
Well, I certainly don’t know how true that all is, but the rest of the article explains Palast’s reasoning for that. It certainly makes one go, “hmmmm.”(For now I can say that I’m glad that I don’t live in Arizona since not only am I considered a minority, but I have often been mistaken for other nationalities like American Indian, which some look a lot like Mexicans. I feel much safer here in Los Angeles in the melting pot, which btw there’s supposed to be a large rally tomorrow protesting the Arizona immigration law. Wonder if it’s really going to be as big as they expect). But in reality, this type of thing (differences of opinions) has been going on since after the civil war, no? Way back then there were both those who believed in slavery and those who did not. Does that mean one was more patriotic than the other? Even back during the founding of our government the Federalist and the Republicans exchanged heated debates similar to today–Jefferson was in favor of limited government, and Adams was in favor of expanding government. Same ‘ole same ‘ole argument, but both are considered our founding forefathers. The difference I see today is now if someone wants government assistance, the GOP cry “socialism” or the “constitution is being shredded”, or “unpatriotic”. It gets to be annoying at times. Can’t we focus on the “issues” or “specifics” or even “facts” rather than name calling or raising suspicions as to who the “real” Americans are? Can’t we have differences of opinions without being labeled “unpatriotic?” I can understand being cautious, but somehow I think there’s a fine line to paranoia, too.
Marlakins
Permalink
10.27.09
Posted in Book Reviews, Hmmm Moments at 7:39 pm by Administrator
It’s super windy out today. The perfect day to curl up and read a good book. I haven’t been able to finish any books on my “to read” list as family life has been keeping me pretty busy. However, one of Matty’s required reading for his English class is Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation. I had read that book years ago when it came out, so it was an interesting book and topic to re-examine.
We have been discussing Fast Food Nation because Matty’s had to write about the various chapters in this book. There are actually many aspects/concepts brought up in this book to discuss and write about, and one of the things Matty chose to write about was advertising. I like these discussions because it’s interesting to hear what my son is thinking and how he’s working things out in his mind. Plus it also gives me a different perspective. For instance regarding advertising one of his complaints was that it was a one-way street. That is, companies like McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants can advertise to us, but we can’t advertise back to them. Hmmm. I never thought about that. Plus, Matty pointed out that not only is it a one-way-street, but it comes directly into the home via television. I know, too, that many people would say that you can turn off the TV or change the channel. True. But it also reminded me of a portion of Barack Obama’s book, Audacity of Hope, where he writes about what’s broadcast on TV. This is what he wrote regarding a speech he gave at the Kaiser Family Foundation after they had given statistics that sex on TV had doubled in recent years:
“. . . Now I enjoy HBO as much as the next guy, and I generally don’t care what adults watch in the privacy of their own homes. In the case of children, I think it’s primarily the duty of parents to monitor what they are watching on television, and in my speech I even suggested that everyone would benefit if parents–heaven forbid–simply turned off the TV and tried to strike up a conversation with their kids.
“Having said all that, I indicated that I wasn’t too happy with ads for erectile-dysfunction drugs popping up every fifteen minutes whenever I watched a football game with my daughters in the room. I offered the further observation that a popular show targeted at teens, in which young people with no visible means of support spend several months getting drunk and jumping naked into hot tubs with strangers, was not ‘the real world.’ I ended by suggesting that the broadcast and cable industries should adopt better standards and technology to help parents control what streamed into their homes.
“You would have thought I was Cotton Mather. In response to my speech, one newspaper editorial intoned that the government had no business regulating protected speech, despite the fact that I hadn’t called for regulation. Reporters suggested that I was cynically tacking to the center in preparation for a national race. More than a few supporters wrote our office, complaining that they had voted for me to beat back the Bush agenda, not to act as the town scold.
“And yet every parent I know, liberal or conservative, complains about the coarsening of the culture, the promotion of easy materialism and instant gratification, and the severing of sexuality from intimacy. They may not want government censorship, but they want those corncerns recognized, their experiences validated. When, for fear of appearing censorious, progressive political leaders can’t even acknowledge the problem, those parents start listening to those leaders who will–leaders who may be less sensitive to constittional constraints.
“Of course conservatives have their own blind spots when it comes to addressing problems in the culture. Take executive pay. . . “
We realize that we can’t rely on government and the judgment of TV networks to choose suitable subjects for our family to view. This is the major reason why we take it upon ourselves to “not” watch regular television broadcasts in our home to limit negative influences. It’s not like there are any programs out there that is essential to watch anyway. But even so, what we have found is that we “still” are influenced by outside “advertising.” No we don’t eat fast foods and haven’t for more than 10 years now, but if we are honest with ourselves, we can’t deny that our society has influenced us even without watching television at home. And I think of what my son, Matty, said, “the influence of advertising is a one-way-street.” And I am reminded of another book I read called, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander. I thought that was another excellent book which discussed the problems with television. I highly recommend that book, too. In that book, Mander explains how television skews our perceptions of real life. It’s been years since I read that book, but it was one of the reasons that encouraged us to stop watching regular television programs in our home.
So why then are we still so influenced by the “outside?” Well, because we still “read” the news and other books and articles, AND we are a family heavily into the internet. . . And we realize that even the people we associate with influence us. so if they are influenced by television, we will be, too. So these discussion with Matty has enlightened me a bit and reminded me that we have to be alert and aware that we are not immune to negative influences even though we try to limit what streams into our home via media. And this is why it is extra important that we teach our boys what’s good and what’s bad and to understand that the friends they choose or the people they associate with will influence them. So that they will be able to discern good from bad and right from wrong in a world that seems to be increasingly blurring those lines.
The next book I’m hoping to get my hands on is called Eating Animals by Jonathan Foer. I don’t expect to go vegetarian after reading it as I’ve already been there and done that, so no thank you. But with the reviews it’s been getting, I’ll probably learn some things from Foer. And with my other son, Andrew’s, school subjects, he has rekindled my interested in reading Sven Lindqvist’s book, A History of Bombing, because Andrew had to do a presentation on the ethics of the bombing of Dresden. He was discussing this with me, and we were looking at the death toll statistics of WWII and the polls taken on whether it was necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know my feelings on it, but I’d like to read what Lindqvist has to say about it. So, I’ve got those two books on library hold. Let’s see if I can manage to get through them.
Okay, so I can smell that dinner is ready, and I’ve rambled long enough, so better leave it here for now. Was there any point to this post? Eh, I think I was just enjoying how I can have interesting discussions with my boys. And to think that once they were so small and our conversations used to be so different!
Marlakins
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
