Ratings and Media Choices

Our media choices affect the spirit we carry with us on a personal level. Perhaps even more importantly, they affect the spirit that can and will be present in the home wherein we make them. I submit these premises at the outset, appealing to my own experience for evidence of their truth.

I broach the subject only to point out two apparent incongruities in both my own choices and my friends' choices.

First: we avoid rated R movies to comply with prophetic counsel (well, some of us do). However, especially in the realm of comedy, many movies that are not rated R are, morally, significantly worse than most rated R movies I have seen. To take a metaphor, mirth acts as a lubricant: with it, we are willing to let a lot more slide than we otherwise would. Humor is just one of several considerations leading to the result that sometimes actions don't match up with intentions in media choices.

Second: We actively and carefully avoid sexual content in movies and games. As we have been warned against pornography, so we avoid it. This is good and proper. However, while we are careful against the temptation to misuse or be too casual with our power to grant life, we are not so careful to avoid becoming too casual about the power to take it. For example:



We like this game. Yet I don't see how, even granting that movies/games that remind us to fight evil are good to some extent, it's proper to seek after things like this.

These incongruities lead to my question: how can I change my taste so as to improve my media choices, thereby improving the spirit I carry with me?

Unmasking an (im)poster

So Damien always brings up interesting things on his blog. Recently he posted about situational ethics. I wondered about his position and a small conversation has ensued. Here's his latest:

"On my post, With All Your Getting, Get Understanding, B. Zeller sought a clarification of my belief in not making decisions until I must:

'Also, just to give a counterpoint, how similar is not carrying around convictions to not deciding whether or not to drink until someone offers you a beer?'

My position is not just similar to your example, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think that creating blanket statements (I will never do x or y) is a bad idea. Here's how my decision-making philosophy works: I gather obligations/devotions/desires through the course of life and when it comes time to decide, I weigh them against each other."

And I decided I'd like to have the glory of posting a reply on my own blog rather than on his comments. So here we go.

I guess I'm not too sure we disagree here; the argument may be simply semantic.

You call the religious obligation a consideration--one of many that enters into any decision. But how is that different from a conviction you carry around? After all, aren't your religious obligations based on a conviction you carry around?

If people have "pre-made" a decision not to drink, isn't that just a very strong consideration--one of many--when the moment of decision actually comes? Their having "pre-made" the decision doesn't destroy any other considerations, it simply strengthens the religious obligation.

I see how you're arguing for open-mindedness here, I'm just not sure that "pre-making" decisions in the way you describe is as closed-minded as one might think.

Random Texts

So last night I was sitting around with my friends...there may or may not have been a movie playing...and I got a random text from a number I didn't recognize:

"Hey you whats up"

In days of yore, when I used to use AIM, sometimes I would get messages from people I didn't know. The game then was to just make conversation until the other person provides enough inadvertent hints to reveal his/her identity. So I went for the same thing here. I text back:

"I'm crossing my legs." (I was). "How are you?"

I figured this was a strange enough reply that how the mystery texter replied to it would reveal whether or not I knew him/her well. Most people I know well would take that kind of reply in stride. The mystery texter replies:

"There a reason they need crossed. . Lol and i'm wet"

This told me a few things: first, the mystery texter does not share my commitment to proper grammar inasmuch as it is possible in a text message. No big deal, but it eliminates everyone I know who texts with proper grammar. Also, the mystery texter didn't seem to take the strangeness in stride. Further, either the mystery texter had just gotten out of the shower--an odd time to be texting me, especially without drying off first--or they got in a water fight, or...well, it's anyone's guess as to how the mystery texter got wet. But I took the wetness as a bad sign. Anyway, I decided to continue with the strangeness approach. I text back:

"Popular demand. How come you're wet?"

Thus far, the mystery texter has not yet replied. I'll give further details as they become available.

Ouch! for Obama

In the NYT, no less!

Is it really the professors?

So Adam has the opinion (via Dennis) that liberal professors and universities go a long way towards creating and perpetuating a lot of the really silly misconceptions that have so damaged modern society (for a list of these, either ask Adam or listen to the Dennis Prager show. Some people would hold that the two activities amount to the same thing sometimes).

Right now I work as a writing fellow for a Sociology of Gender class; I teach the sociology students how to write effectively. Having read several of their papers and talked extensively with the professor that teaches the class, I've come to two conclusions. First, there are a whole lot of silly misconceptions among sociology students, and perhaps there is a big one in the sociology field (more on that later). Second, the professor isn't teaching a lot of these misconceptions. A lot of the things the students say in their papers are ridiculous, though unfortunately I can't post them for confidentiality's sake. But the professor doesn't share those same misconceptions. Her views seem a lot more plausible and nuanced. While that may be just because she's better at expressing them, the other possibility is that it is often the students, not the field at large or the professors, that hold and perpetuate silly misconceptions.

National Anthems: Israel

I'll admit some partiality to Israel's national anthem. Ok, it's my favorite. The music is fantastic and the words express the unity of a people that has transcended the political existence of their country for thousands of years.

What makes me a fellow countryman of, say, a child of illegal immigrants in California? For argument's sake, let's also suppose that this child of illegal immigrants is a far-left liberal who believes that America's net influence on the world has been decidedly bad. I can think of two ways in which we might be considered countrymen.

First, we might be considered countrymen based on politico-geographical borders and the law that rules within them. We were both born within the borders of the United States, and so are both U.S. citizens under law. Because we both subscribe to that law and accept the rights, privileges, and responsibilities it offers, we are countrymen. There seem to be a couple of problems with this view. First, the fact the other person's parents are illegal immigrants makes the common legal ideology seem like a strange commonality. Of course, that has no bearing on what the other person thinks of or reacts to the law, so that point is moot. Second, given the other's political ideology, we disagree significantly about the law. We disagree both about what the current content and purpose of the law is and about what the content and purpose of the law should be. The disagreement is strongest on the law's most fundamental and important points. So that commonality with respect to the law seems problematic.

Second, we might be considered countrymen because we share a national heritage. Given, my ancestors were Mayflower pilgrims (arriving in Plymouth in 1620) and Swiss Huguenots (arriving in Pennsylvania in the 18th century), and the other's are Latin Americans who had little to do with this country until the other's parents illegally entered it. They likely did not enter the country with an aim to be good citizens of it, but to capitalize on the economic situation here to build a more comfortable life for themselves. Of course, my ancestors also came with the intent to build a better life for themselves, but I feel like the two are different somehow. Regardless, the idea is that the other, as a U.S. citizen, inherits the common heritage of U.S. citizens. It's a diverse heritage, but from their diversity our forbears united behind common ideals and forged a national identity--E Pluribus Unum. But I have neither common ideals nor a common national identity with the other here; the other's ideals are radically different from mine, and the other rejects or is ashamed of the national identity that came with U.S. citizenship.

So what makes us countrymen?

The Israelis do not have this problem. They are bound together by a common heritage and belief that has withstood the worst this world has been able to give it. They are passionate about it and, since Moses, have been willing to fight for it.

Observe.

Finally, here are the words:

As long as in the heart, within,
A Jewish soul is yearning,
And to the edges of the East, forward,
An eye gazes towards Zion,

Our hope is not yet lost,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free nation in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

My True Talent

With a little help from my friends, I've discovered it:

Michelle: well mr. sunshine...

you've managed to make what was already a dreary day all the drearier.

thank you

me: it's my strong suit

take what was happiness, and by pure force of association turn it into oppressive boredom and melancholy

So, there you have it, folks. That's why I'm here.