Posts
Censorship in America is nothing new. With parents groups and other media watchdog groups decrying profanity in rock and rap lyrics, to right-wingers protesting the reading of Harry Potter novels, there are new windmills to tilt at all the time.
Back in the 1970’s, Judy Blume published her first novel, Forever, and with it, became the scourge of many parents not wanting their young daughters exposed to her frank portrayals of young girls coming to terms with their burgeoning teen sexuality.
Every generation has its own crusade to limit and remove any vestiges of reality from the lives of their children and teens. And since time immemorial, young people have done their darned-well-best to get their hands on whatever they weren’t supposed to touch.
Last year, when Blume was awarded the National Book Foundation’s Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters, she became the first Young Adult author to receive the prestigious award. With over 30 novels in print and 75 million copies sold worldwide, the award was certainly an overdue recognition of one writer’s contribution to an important genre of literature, that being the niche category of Young Adult fiction.
Still, censorship is an issue that won’t go away. All over America, parents, religious groups and others routinely harass, harangue and lobby for the removal of books from school reading lists. Blume herself routinely makes the American Library Association’s Most Frequently Challenged Books List.
Just this past December, a group of parents in Georgetown, S.C., successfully lobbied to have Chris Crutcher's Whale Talk--about a male 17-year-old who confronts his multicultural heritage--banned from high school suggested-reading lists approved by schools and the state's school board. The author's other books that concern homosexuality and parental sexual abuse continue to be struck from reading lists.
Now I’m one of those “liberal” folks, open-minded enough to be happy that kids are reading, period! I also have a great deal of faith that with the right guidance from parents and other sensible adults, young people will be able to make their own decisions about what to read (as well as what to listen to). Part of becoming an adult is learning to discern right from wrong and develop the critical faculties to make wise choices. Heck, most adults haven’t done real well in that area, so who the hell are we to tell our kids what’s right and wrong.
Provide the guidance, model the behavior, and trust young people to figure it out. Some pretty good advice and it sure beats censorship with a stick!
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Sunday, April 10, 2005
The need for labels
Labels apparently are important. I’d be remiss if I didn’t admit that I’ve placed my own share of importance on learning what label others were currently wearing.
Take for instance the conservative vs. liberal debate. It seems as though both sides are content to use the other’s label in a pejorative way. Who hasn’t heard someone say, “oh, you’re just a liberal do-gooder”, or someone try to marginalize the views of conservatives by representing them in a particularly narrow way.
It doesn’t help that the traditional meaning of "conservative" and "liberal" have been hijacked for partisan and political purposes. In tracing its roots back to the humanism of the Renaissance and even the Revolution of 1688 in Great Britain, liberalism in its development, stood in opposition to absolute monarchy, orthodoxy, and other forms of control or power.
Conservatism on the other hand, in its traditional, non-ideological definition, stood for the importance of maintaining tradition and maintaining continuity with that tradition. This could be in government, religion, or other social constructs. Traditional conservatism would be opposed to rapid changes on either the left or the right.
Recently, I’ve really come to hate having to wear a label, or even resort to explanations of my position by retreating to the tired right/left means of definition. When others accuse me of being a liberal (most often hurled in a pejorative sense), I try to explain that much of what passes as liberalism in our current form is something I’d be opposed to. There are those who claim to be liberals who are every bit as censorious and opposed to honest debate as anyone on the right-wing fringes of any of our modern-day movements.
I find so much of the political debate to be tiresome and not particularly relevant to where I see the problems in society originating. I find many of the outlets of left-wing discourse—magazines, radio, the blogosphere—to be as narrow and lacking in solutions as any of the arrogant bloviations originating from the right-wing noise machine.
When two sides have retreated to their corners and all they do is hurl rocks back and forth, its easy to end up getting bonked in the head if you dare to venture out into the middle area of debate on an issue.
I’m not sure exactly what I’m trying to get at, but part of it is driven by the discomfort I’m feeling in trying to align with any particular group.
According to one particular poll, I’d be considered a “liberal”, with my score being weighted heavily towards freedom in personal areas (90 percent), but leaning towards government control on the major economic issues (40 percent). I’d be comfortable with that, I think.
The more in-depth Political Compass has me aligned as being in the lower left quadrant of their grid (left libertarian).
I’m left of center and certainly anti-authoritarian, which probably puts me out of the current mainstream in my homeland of America. At the same time, I respect others right to differ with my views, as long as there is some sort of dialogue and rational explanation for their positions.
I’m sure that a lot of this may not mean much or register much importance with others. I’m just finding so much of the shrill baying back-and-forth to be something I no longer have much of desire to take part in. It might be a copout on my part, or just a recognition that a lot of what I’ve been involved in hasn’t amounted to a hill of beans. All I know is that I want to step back from a lot of the debates and try to reconsider what is important to me and the people I care about.
Take for instance the conservative vs. liberal debate. It seems as though both sides are content to use the other’s label in a pejorative way. Who hasn’t heard someone say, “oh, you’re just a liberal do-gooder”, or someone try to marginalize the views of conservatives by representing them in a particularly narrow way.
It doesn’t help that the traditional meaning of "conservative" and "liberal" have been hijacked for partisan and political purposes. In tracing its roots back to the humanism of the Renaissance and even the Revolution of 1688 in Great Britain, liberalism in its development, stood in opposition to absolute monarchy, orthodoxy, and other forms of control or power.
Conservatism on the other hand, in its traditional, non-ideological definition, stood for the importance of maintaining tradition and maintaining continuity with that tradition. This could be in government, religion, or other social constructs. Traditional conservatism would be opposed to rapid changes on either the left or the right.
Recently, I’ve really come to hate having to wear a label, or even resort to explanations of my position by retreating to the tired right/left means of definition. When others accuse me of being a liberal (most often hurled in a pejorative sense), I try to explain that much of what passes as liberalism in our current form is something I’d be opposed to. There are those who claim to be liberals who are every bit as censorious and opposed to honest debate as anyone on the right-wing fringes of any of our modern-day movements.
I find so much of the political debate to be tiresome and not particularly relevant to where I see the problems in society originating. I find many of the outlets of left-wing discourse—magazines, radio, the blogosphere—to be as narrow and lacking in solutions as any of the arrogant bloviations originating from the right-wing noise machine.
When two sides have retreated to their corners and all they do is hurl rocks back and forth, its easy to end up getting bonked in the head if you dare to venture out into the middle area of debate on an issue.
I’m not sure exactly what I’m trying to get at, but part of it is driven by the discomfort I’m feeling in trying to align with any particular group.
According to one particular poll, I’d be considered a “liberal”, with my score being weighted heavily towards freedom in personal areas (90 percent), but leaning towards government control on the major economic issues (40 percent). I’d be comfortable with that, I think.
The more in-depth Political Compass has me aligned as being in the lower left quadrant of their grid (left libertarian).
I’m left of center and certainly anti-authoritarian, which probably puts me out of the current mainstream in my homeland of America. At the same time, I respect others right to differ with my views, as long as there is some sort of dialogue and rational explanation for their positions.
I’m sure that a lot of this may not mean much or register much importance with others. I’m just finding so much of the shrill baying back-and-forth to be something I no longer have much of desire to take part in. It might be a copout on my part, or just a recognition that a lot of what I’ve been involved in hasn’t amounted to a hill of beans. All I know is that I want to step back from a lot of the debates and try to reconsider what is important to me and the people I care about.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
The Pitchman's Persistent Promotion
Being barraged by advertising is nothing new. Ever since mankind has occupied the planet, “the pitch” has been present. In the ruins of ancient Pompeii, commercial messages and election campaign displays were found, dating back to the first century.
Modern consumerism dictates that the sole purpose of man is to consume goods and drive demand for products. None of this is new. What is new is the daily ratcheting up of the “in your face” quotient of the advertising. More and more, advertising is being foisted upon captive audiences. Almost every waking moment is filled with another pitch for someone elses product. It seems as if slogans are the modern American lexicon.
Never was this more obvious to me than last night while gassing up my automobile. Driving by station after station with prices for Regular at $2.25, I resigned myself to pulling in at Exxon to fill up the tank and empty my wallet. As I approached the pump and began my transaction, the credit card display and information center on the pump morphed into a video screen. Like a prisoner, I was forced to endure a barrage of commercials for products ranging from e-loans, credit cards and God knows what else during my five minute ordeal. In the past, filling the tank was an opportunity for a few minutes to zone out and engage in some modern day mind-numbing that is part-and-parcel of our crass commercial culture. No longer however, can I be allowed a few minutes to just allow my mind to idle. No sir! Some marketing guru recognized that another five minutes of my life was not being manipulated by him and his Madison Avenue mates.
Everywhere one goes, there is a video terminal spewing forth marketing content or some other cultural white noise. Our regional coffee chain, Dunkin’ Donuts, now has CNN Headline News displayed 24/7 on squawk boxes, in every one of their franchises. Obviously, some deal has been struck by this news monolith and said coffee chain. I could go on ad nauseum about the ubiquitous presence of commercials in the public square.
Major league (and minor league) baseball games have become a steady stream of advertisements, as the real competition isn’t between the home team and their opponent, but rather the game itself and the advertisements jammed between each and every pitch.
“That foul ball was brought to you by MasterCard, the official credit card of Barry Bonds’ foul balls.”
The other day, while watching the Red Sox, I found the ads behind home plate at Yankee Stadium annoying as hell. Even the goddamn History Channel had an ad in rotation that was being flashed behind the batter on every pitch.
Maybe we could reach a compromise with marketers. How about they create a device that you could attach before retiring for the evening and they could just broadcast their messages during sleep. Better yet, maybe they could just implant a chip in our brains that would allow them direct access to our impulses and save us all the hassle of watching the damn commercials in the first place!
Addendum:
Somewhat related to the above, I found it ironic, in this age of ever-present advertising and the selling of every inch of space and second of media, that all the major networks and cable news channels broadcast the Pope’s funeral. I can only imagine the revenue lost during this hour of time.
I found it ironic for several reasons; the aforementioned loss of revenue and also, despite the charges of many conservatives and other right-wing spokespeople that say the media is “liberal” and “secular”, the media obviously doesn’t have an issue giving prime media time to the funeral of a religious leader.
Stat of the day:
Ranking of world religions by size (from adherents.com)-
Christianity 2 billion (half of these are Catholics)
Islam 1.3 billion
Hiduism 900,000 million
Secular/Athiest/Agnostic/Nonreligious 850 million
Buddhism 360 million
Chinese Traditional 225 million
Primal/indigenous 150 million
African Traditional and Diasporic 95 million
Comment: If a major leader of either Islam or Hinduism, or even a secular or agnostic leader died, would they warrant the international media coverage that the Pope’s death received?
Personally, I found all the adulation, reverance and talk of being "moved" by the eulogy at the funeral all to be over-the-top. I was somewhat offended by having journalists became cheerleaders for the Vatican, at the expense of much of the previous 2,000 years of Church history that isn't very pretty. I understand American's aversion to anything historical, but the sex abuse scandals (of which this Pope was complicit in the coverup) are recent and the Church in my mind, has never come clean on addressing the root causes.
Modern consumerism dictates that the sole purpose of man is to consume goods and drive demand for products. None of this is new. What is new is the daily ratcheting up of the “in your face” quotient of the advertising. More and more, advertising is being foisted upon captive audiences. Almost every waking moment is filled with another pitch for someone elses product. It seems as if slogans are the modern American lexicon.
Never was this more obvious to me than last night while gassing up my automobile. Driving by station after station with prices for Regular at $2.25, I resigned myself to pulling in at Exxon to fill up the tank and empty my wallet. As I approached the pump and began my transaction, the credit card display and information center on the pump morphed into a video screen. Like a prisoner, I was forced to endure a barrage of commercials for products ranging from e-loans, credit cards and God knows what else during my five minute ordeal. In the past, filling the tank was an opportunity for a few minutes to zone out and engage in some modern day mind-numbing that is part-and-parcel of our crass commercial culture. No longer however, can I be allowed a few minutes to just allow my mind to idle. No sir! Some marketing guru recognized that another five minutes of my life was not being manipulated by him and his Madison Avenue mates.
Everywhere one goes, there is a video terminal spewing forth marketing content or some other cultural white noise. Our regional coffee chain, Dunkin’ Donuts, now has CNN Headline News displayed 24/7 on squawk boxes, in every one of their franchises. Obviously, some deal has been struck by this news monolith and said coffee chain. I could go on ad nauseum about the ubiquitous presence of commercials in the public square.
Major league (and minor league) baseball games have become a steady stream of advertisements, as the real competition isn’t between the home team and their opponent, but rather the game itself and the advertisements jammed between each and every pitch.
“That foul ball was brought to you by MasterCard, the official credit card of Barry Bonds’ foul balls.”
The other day, while watching the Red Sox, I found the ads behind home plate at Yankee Stadium annoying as hell. Even the goddamn History Channel had an ad in rotation that was being flashed behind the batter on every pitch.
Maybe we could reach a compromise with marketers. How about they create a device that you could attach before retiring for the evening and they could just broadcast their messages during sleep. Better yet, maybe they could just implant a chip in our brains that would allow them direct access to our impulses and save us all the hassle of watching the damn commercials in the first place!
Addendum:
Somewhat related to the above, I found it ironic, in this age of ever-present advertising and the selling of every inch of space and second of media, that all the major networks and cable news channels broadcast the Pope’s funeral. I can only imagine the revenue lost during this hour of time.
I found it ironic for several reasons; the aforementioned loss of revenue and also, despite the charges of many conservatives and other right-wing spokespeople that say the media is “liberal” and “secular”, the media obviously doesn’t have an issue giving prime media time to the funeral of a religious leader.
Stat of the day:
Ranking of world religions by size (from adherents.com)-
Christianity 2 billion (half of these are Catholics)
Islam 1.3 billion
Hiduism 900,000 million
Secular/Athiest/Agnostic/Nonreligious 850 million
Buddhism 360 million
Chinese Traditional 225 million
Primal/indigenous 150 million
African Traditional and Diasporic 95 million
Comment: If a major leader of either Islam or Hinduism, or even a secular or agnostic leader died, would they warrant the international media coverage that the Pope’s death received?
Personally, I found all the adulation, reverance and talk of being "moved" by the eulogy at the funeral all to be over-the-top. I was somewhat offended by having journalists became cheerleaders for the Vatican, at the expense of much of the previous 2,000 years of Church history that isn't very pretty. I understand American's aversion to anything historical, but the sex abuse scandals (of which this Pope was complicit in the coverup) are recent and the Church in my mind, has never come clean on addressing the root causes.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
What was it I said about pitching?
While I'm not ready to jump off a building two games into a 162 game slate, I've also watched enough baseball to recognize issues and needs when I see them. The Boston Red Sox have a need for some starting pitching. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Today's 4+ inning outing by right-hander Matt Clement was a case in point. With a 90-92 mph fastball, great slider and 7 years of major league experience, Clement should be poised to step forward and assume the number two spot in the rotation. His short outing today did little to assure me that Clement is any better than a #4 starter in a rotation. Last season, that wouldn't have been an issue. Unfortunately this year, other than Schillling, this Red Sox staff is a collection of #4 and #5 guys at best.
With the season only two games old, the Sox are going to their bullpen too often and way too early. The other night's opener saw manager Francona use seven pitchers. Today's abbreviated outing by Clement had the skipper once again forced to dip into his bullpen early.
Despite my concerns, I'm confident that a GM like Theo Epstein will do what he needs to do to stabilize the pitching. The problem is that without making a blockbuster deal or trading for unproven talent, there isnt' any pitching out there that will bring the Sox a pitcher the likes of the departed Martinez or Lowe.
Parting shots:
Did you happen to catch Ian O'Connor's (who) article in today's USA Today? I don't know if he's a regular contributor to this McPaper or not, but O'Connor (who writes for that household publication, The Westchester Journal in upstate New York) is quick to pile on the Red Sox. O'Connor, that grisled vet of the sportsbeat has seen enough baseball to conclude that the Sox are full of themselves.
Where the hell does he get that from? With an article full of overused metaphors and cute phrases reminiscent of one writing for his school yearbook, O'Connor shows himself for the pathetic hack that he is.
O'Connor derives great pleasure from lines like these; "The notion that the Boston Red Sox have grown fat and happy on their once-every-Halley's comet parade was fed by the image of David Wells in the opening-night lights, the former Yankee appearing as if he had eaten Central Park for lunch. Even in a 162-game season you never get a second chance to make a first impression, and the Red Sox began defending a world championship in a most predictable way: like a team that hasn't had much practice defending a world championship."
You can usually measure the skill of a writer by the lengths they go in their attempts to be cute. This guy doensn't deserve to write for the local historical society's newsletter, let alone a national daily, even if it is USA Today.
The close:
While I was ready to write the finale, with Keith Foulke on the mound and Varitek's homer making me absolutely giddy, the comeback victory hopes were thwarted by the Yankees "Mr. Clutch", Derek Jeter. With the Sox staging more late inning heroics against Mariano Rivera, this one had a script that read victory.
One of the bright spots that had me encouraged prior to Jeter's walk-off blast, was the work of the Red Sox bullpen. With clutch pitching coming form a trio of veterans the likes of John Halama, Matt Mantei and Alan Embree, the Sox bullpen showed itself to once again be one of the team's strongpoints in '05. Unfortunately, Foulke made a mistake to Jeter, who doesn't usually miss when the game is on the line.
While its cliche to say "it's only two games", the problem is that games that get away in April have a tendency to come back and bite you in the ass in September, when you are battling for a wildcard birth.
Today's 4+ inning outing by right-hander Matt Clement was a case in point. With a 90-92 mph fastball, great slider and 7 years of major league experience, Clement should be poised to step forward and assume the number two spot in the rotation. His short outing today did little to assure me that Clement is any better than a #4 starter in a rotation. Last season, that wouldn't have been an issue. Unfortunately this year, other than Schillling, this Red Sox staff is a collection of #4 and #5 guys at best.
With the season only two games old, the Sox are going to their bullpen too often and way too early. The other night's opener saw manager Francona use seven pitchers. Today's abbreviated outing by Clement had the skipper once again forced to dip into his bullpen early.
Despite my concerns, I'm confident that a GM like Theo Epstein will do what he needs to do to stabilize the pitching. The problem is that without making a blockbuster deal or trading for unproven talent, there isnt' any pitching out there that will bring the Sox a pitcher the likes of the departed Martinez or Lowe.
Parting shots:
Did you happen to catch Ian O'Connor's (who) article in today's USA Today? I don't know if he's a regular contributor to this McPaper or not, but O'Connor (who writes for that household publication, The Westchester Journal in upstate New York) is quick to pile on the Red Sox. O'Connor, that grisled vet of the sportsbeat has seen enough baseball to conclude that the Sox are full of themselves.
Where the hell does he get that from? With an article full of overused metaphors and cute phrases reminiscent of one writing for his school yearbook, O'Connor shows himself for the pathetic hack that he is.
O'Connor derives great pleasure from lines like these; "The notion that the Boston Red Sox have grown fat and happy on their once-every-Halley's comet parade was fed by the image of David Wells in the opening-night lights, the former Yankee appearing as if he had eaten Central Park for lunch. Even in a 162-game season you never get a second chance to make a first impression, and the Red Sox began defending a world championship in a most predictable way: like a team that hasn't had much practice defending a world championship."
You can usually measure the skill of a writer by the lengths they go in their attempts to be cute. This guy doensn't deserve to write for the local historical society's newsletter, let alone a national daily, even if it is USA Today.
The close:
While I was ready to write the finale, with Keith Foulke on the mound and Varitek's homer making me absolutely giddy, the comeback victory hopes were thwarted by the Yankees "Mr. Clutch", Derek Jeter. With the Sox staging more late inning heroics against Mariano Rivera, this one had a script that read victory.
One of the bright spots that had me encouraged prior to Jeter's walk-off blast, was the work of the Red Sox bullpen. With clutch pitching coming form a trio of veterans the likes of John Halama, Matt Mantei and Alan Embree, the Sox bullpen showed itself to once again be one of the team's strongpoints in '05. Unfortunately, Foulke made a mistake to Jeter, who doesn't usually miss when the game is on the line.
While its cliche to say "it's only two games", the problem is that games that get away in April have a tendency to come back and bite you in the ass in September, when you are battling for a wildcard birth.
Slow versus fast
I attended my first meeting of my local Slow Food Convivia last night, in Portland. I had been invited nearly a year ago to some of the initial meetings of a group looking to explore community in greater Portland, around a monthly meal, consisting of healthy and local food. Obviously, I'm a bit of a procrastinator, as it has taken me a year to finally show up at a gathering. Ironically, the woman who invited me couldn't attend.
For those of you who don't know about Slow Food, it is a movement that was founded in Italy in 1986. Its founder, Carlo Petrini, sought to promote food and wine, as well as agricultural biodiversity worldwide.
Like many aspects of our culture, local food production has been co-opted by market elements, robbing it of uniqueness and resulting in the homogenization of much of what passes for production and preparation of food in the U.S.
While my intial experience of what Slow Food (the movement) was about came from an Utne Reader article, I didn't know alot about what the significance was of the worldwide movement.
I'm still in the process of understanding it, but my initial in-person experience was a positive one. The Portland Convivium (local chapter) had a communal meal, with members (and non-members) bringing various foods. All of us got to try new foods, drink some wine, socialize and then participate in the monthly meeting. As a newcomer, I met alot of new people, many with connections to food; either cooks, owners of bakeries or local markets, as well as others like myself, with no formal connection to food other than being a consumer.
The concept is an interesting one and I'll probably go back again. The meetings are the first Monday of the month and our next one will once again be at the beautiful St. Lawrence Arts and Community Center in Portland, with the meeting set to start at 6PM.
For those of you who don't know about Slow Food, it is a movement that was founded in Italy in 1986. Its founder, Carlo Petrini, sought to promote food and wine, as well as agricultural biodiversity worldwide.
Like many aspects of our culture, local food production has been co-opted by market elements, robbing it of uniqueness and resulting in the homogenization of much of what passes for production and preparation of food in the U.S.
While my intial experience of what Slow Food (the movement) was about came from an Utne Reader article, I didn't know alot about what the significance was of the worldwide movement.
I'm still in the process of understanding it, but my initial in-person experience was a positive one. The Portland Convivium (local chapter) had a communal meal, with members (and non-members) bringing various foods. All of us got to try new foods, drink some wine, socialize and then participate in the monthly meeting. As a newcomer, I met alot of new people, many with connections to food; either cooks, owners of bakeries or local markets, as well as others like myself, with no formal connection to food other than being a consumer.
The concept is an interesting one and I'll probably go back again. The meetings are the first Monday of the month and our next one will once again be at the beautiful St. Lawrence Arts and Community Center in Portland, with the meeting set to start at 6PM.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)