Status Pain

Actually a website: visit for an idea of my concern here.

This post has been a long-time coming, but something I think about at least every day. When I scan the Facebook wall to see what "friends" are up to, I see many statuses that are a little confusing to me. They seem to be the equivalent of e-mail spam, personal contact's version of fishing for compliments, and can be at least as damaging or manipulative as either. Very little of the words on this post will be from me, so let's get to the status updates in question and I'll have some closing thoughts/questions at the very end: 

1. I personally believe in Jesus Christ. One Facebooker has challenged all believers to put this on their wall. The bible says, if you deny Me in front of your peers, I will deny you in front of My Father. This is a simple test. If you are not afraid to show it, re-post this. I proudly did! (: 
2. Like this status if I've ever made you smile(: repost and see how many likes you get(:
3. What if I died tomorrow -- would you miss me here?  
4. Single or not put this as your status & see what you get Inbox only!!!..

1. ♥ = I want a relationship
2. :) = I kinda like you
3. :p = I'm shy.... but your cute
4. XD = I want your number
5. :D = you mean everything 
6. </3 = I regret leaving
5. Ugh, I feel so ugly today! (posted alongside new profile pic, looking good) 
6. Truth is...
7. Repost if you're ending 2011 single. If someone wants to change that they'll send you a ♥.

Disappointment Waiting To Happen

I'll stop here because it's getting depressing to wonder about the emotional health of so many people I know. What are the unintended consequences of posts like these, of turning to "social media" while losing the ability (skill?) to socially engage others in person and build up meaningful relationships? Have we been sold the illusion of cyber-friendship? What if you don't re-post the first (are you denying Jesus?); what if no one likes, responds, re-posts, or affirms your internet-appeal for affirmation? What does that do to your self-worth?

Born to Believe (or Pejorative Fantasy)

According to dictionary.com, pejoration is defined as 1) depreciation, a lessening in worth, quality, etc. or 2) semantic change in a word to a lower, less approved, or less respectable meaning. So my question is this: when did fantasy become a mode for disseminating personal agendas? Or when was fantasy not used for these agendas? OR, when was it decided that fantasy could be a carrier for these agendas?

Some might say that this is a recent development, but one would only need return to a modern-day watching of Bambi or Snow White to receive quite a lesson in the use of propaganda to tell a story. It's nothing new...


In light of the release of the upcoming Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 release in November, I wanted to offer my readers a (not too) brief but interesting refresher course on - well, no, you caught me. This is pretty much an article about those who would force agendas on the world while denying others the prerogative to do the same.

Twilight Brings A New Moon Later Eclipsed By The Breaking Dawn

When Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 hit the theaters, reviewers and pundits flocked to their cubicles, couches, or reserved seats at coffee shops around the country. Steno note pads, writing tablets, and laptops at the ready, poised fingers flit over the surface of their latest masterpiece - the review that will catch every eye and garner the attention of every editor they've dreamed of working for.

The hope? That lady Muse (or, to avoid the rampart sexism inherent here, Mr. Inspiration) would bless those nimble digits with a dexterity Stephen King himself would have to marvel at. Alas, what most find is the need to resort to gimmicks, name-calling, self-important jargon, or lackluster associations. And truly, in the absence of real insight, writers are reduced to monkeys typing into oblivion hoping to produce the next Hamlet. Word play alone won't earn a following, vitriolic invectives entertain only for so long, and, well... actually, I don't know that people ever get tired of conjuring up smoke and mirror associations to raise another's heartbeat and blood pressure. We do like a good car wreck, don't we?

The first time I saw BD Pt. 1 with the youth at my church. I really enjoyed it, despite the negative reviews from Facebook friends who had seen it before me, and decided I needed to read the books again - yes, again - before BD Pt. 2 comes out. The second time I saw it with my wife - both during opening weekend. I enjoyed watching for those little nuggets I'd missed before, largely having to do with the actor's performances and special effects. At home Rebeca happened upon this Wikipedia article that absolutely astonished us.

A Wikipedia article does not the truth make... but sometimes the documentation can lead us to some interesting tidbits. It seems that writers have aimed their verbal guns at this newest film in the Twilight Saga through the cross-hairs of personal ideology. No doubt we all are not so objective as we feel at times, and our own opinions and beliefs are often conveyed through our words and writings, but it's possible that a movie review might be a better place to... review a movie, without one's incensed or poetic attempts to garner a following. Well, I'm not entirely sure that doing otherwise is even possible. But I'm still willing to give it a shot here, give some snarky comment when I fail miserably, and simply enjoy the cathartic process of writing. Let's get to it, shall we?


Hackles & Shackles
Except for those precious grubs that have been living under a rock, knowledge about the Twilight Saga of books and movies from the imagination of Stephenie Meyer is hardly privileged, need-to-know information. You may not be Team Edward or Jacob, or have a poster of Bella on your ceiling above your bed (by the way, I'm not admitting anything there), but you likely have some kind of opinion about it all: the books, movies, characters, or even the people who like/dislike the books, movies, or characters. As I have already taken the liberty to do for many people in person, I encourage all who read this blog to read the books - Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn - and then, at least, you can make an educated critique of the movies and the surrounding phenomena. Some reviews seem to have subverted the teen drama of the books and movies and opted for the more cerebral route of imputing them with personal ideologies and agendas. More than any other, one agenda stands out as the crowned jewel for pompous discussion, post-viewing.

 One link asks if the movie is even appropriate for teens. In addition to arguments against the sex, teen pregnancy, rejection of Bella's parents, and bloody birth scene, Chen argues that the movie weighs in too heavily on the abortion debate. First off, Bella, in the books as well as the movie, is not a champion for the pro-life movement but a girl of marrying and procreation age that wants to have a baby. She is freaked out when she finds out but warms to the idea and decides to have the baby. There are no "I believe life begins at conception" or "God made this a baby, not a glob of tissue" arguments. She shows strength and resolve. But Chen says, "The bulk of the movie is one long pro-life debate. Sure, Bella says it's her body, her choice (terms usually used in the pro-choice movement), but her decision is pro-life to the extreme... Ultimately both mother and child survive, but there's so much "fetus" vs "baby," life begins at conception talk that it's bound to confuse some younger viewers."

I don't have to rewrite Chen's words to convey them in pro-choice drama - they ooze contempt for any woman's choice to bear a new life, especially if it means danger for the mother. I see here a pro-choice sentiment that would remove the choice from a mother if danger seemed eminent. Where then is the choice? Or, is the only acceptable choice one that makes abortion a legally acceptable, culturally encouraged option? The "fetus/baby" war Chen imagined happened once - once. As a matter of fact, the adjectives "fetus, it, and thing" were used more than the term "baby" because the shocked family of vampires questioned the nature of what a humavamp hybrid really was. We cannot remove the movie from it's "based on the novel by..." context, the fantasy genre, or its entertainment medium. And since the phrase, "life begins at conception" wasn't in the film, one has to wonder where she got such a phrase. Where... where did she get it?

Chen masks her agenda with a thinly veiled plea for younger viewers, the ones who may be confused by fetus, baby, conception talk. This is graduate school drivel - if youth are too young to get the political undertones Chen is worried about, they won't lose any sleep over it. If they are old enough to understand and ask questions, shouldn't we be open to sharing with them the nature of the debate?

I guess the 'confusion' comes in when youth are led to believe that it's okay to not be okay with abortion. It's certainly not culturally PC these days to say such things, but would pro-choice advocates truly want to remove another's right to have that opinion? If so, it sounds rather intolerant. But I know that, as a pro-life (not anti-abortion) advocate, I actually can't use the "intolerant" term - it's a one-way street, and I'm the one that's supposed to be staring into the headlights of progress, not the other side. But I digress with much ado about nothing.

What Chen missed, apparently, was the intense emotional struggle of people torn between their love for each other and a human's understanding of a decidedly human phenomenon that would not be possible once she is "changed." Rosalie is on Bella's side because she envies her the decision to choose, which she never had. It's in the books, and in the film Eclipse. Let's not reduce the troubled angst to a political statement, okay Chen?

Weighing in with similar positions, The Torontoist called it an "anti-abortion parable." Neumaier says in this article that Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 is "as anti-sex, anti-thrills, anti-abortion, anti-drama and, well, anti-plot as any major recent film." I think he's very proud of that line especially. I almost expected to see a yellow smiley face at the end of the line, were it not for the elevated pomp his review must have been going for. I have to admit, though: when me and my youth emerged from the dark theater with our bowler caps and London Fog trench coats, we hastened to a city corner coffee shop and discussed the perfectly blasé attempt Condon (the director) made at finding a suitable genre platform. Yes, yes, we didst giggle over our biscotti and lightly sweetened coffees. For this is what youth do ever so love to do.

These articles were less movie review than ideological platforms and self-aggrandized statements to pad a career. One has to wonder how the term "anti-sex" gets attached to characters who were rarin' to go after their wedding (until Bella appeared harmed by the throes of passion) and Bella's continued desires to do "it" again juxtaposed with Edward's refusal to harm her again by "losing control." Anti-sex indeed.

Morris, in another article, says by not reading the books, he possesses "objectivity needed to grade the movies on their own merits." I applaud you, sir. Whenever I go to see a movie, my desire is to study the thing to death, to remove it from its creative, emotive surroundings, prick at it, and examine how it reacts to the blood-letting. I would humbly submit that you're missing a great deal of the movie-watching experience. And yet again, Morris joins the politically active in focusing on what he believes is a radically pro-life mantle surrounding the film. Objective. Nay, sir, but a continuation of the beliefs of many. You can put your trail-blazing persona to bed for the night.

But one article, from the feminist Ms. Magazine, perhaps argues more for women's rights than others combined, calling Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 "an anti-abortion message in a bruised-apple package" - imagery that hearkens back to the cover of the first book, and the textual references to the forbidden romance between a human and a vampire. This magazine gets its hackles raised with Bella's choice hotly against their opinion, and the agenda-laced perspective completely ignores the arguments of others who argue for terminating the pregnancy. The feminist shackles blind Wilson from seeing that a choice against the choice she would make is still that - a choice. It's not threatening unless you actually need others to agree with you to feel validated. There appears to be an unspoken belief that if a woman chooses to keep a baby - even if at great cost to her personally - she is being manipulated by others. This is ideological deck-stacking at its finest.

Another gentleman named Richard Lawson, clearly a high school student with his finger on the pulse of youth today, refers to the themes of love, lust, and loss. This daisy deserves his own paragraph, as he goes way off the res and we must follow him there to see how ludicrous he becomes (I haven't included the link because much of what he says is actually inappropriate).

I don't even know how to describe his opening paragraph but by warning parents to keep a keen eye open for such sex-crazed men. As a personal apology on behalf of Mrs. Meyer, I am sorry the movies didn't meet your sex-filled criteria for romance. Do you happen to be happily married, or just a cavorting, lecherous old man? In a jumping, twisting, flight of fancy Lawson says, "that Meyer chooses the terrible pains of becoming an undead bloodthirsty nightmare creature to be her metaphor for sex is more than a little telling of this story's curious and frustratingly retrograde sexual politics." Hmm, I'm a little concerned with how much sex is on this man's mind, and why he's imputing it into a teen romance. He would, no doubt, enjoy an afternoon with Freud over coffee.

But alas, the purpose of this article leads me to cut to the chase and mention Lawson's belief that the movie is an "anti-abortion sermon" - this is what "heroes do, girls," is a statement about the reproductive politics of those most involved in the film. If "there was no escaping the firmly anti-choice themes" of this movie, then what does one do with the choice each character shows to have their own choice? Okay wait, I thought we were actually talking about freedom to choose, not just freedom to choose abortion so the social - and timely - agenda out here in the real world can be advanced. All I have to say is thank goodness this reviewer could give me a little unbiased, political-free review material - I'd hate to be purposefully swayed by the subjective agenda!

Fiction & Fantasy
All people are born into a particular space, time, and continue on in the influences that affect them directly. We are affected by economic, social, religious, educational, and innate factors that comprise who we are. Even more disturbing than judging another's work against our personal framework, and discounting it according to how it measures up, is self-righteously assuming that another is subjectively indoctrinating the masses whereas we - the humble, the few, the untouched by bias - are more objective. There is a deep-seated root of arrogance and pride that under-girds such biases.

Beliefs are central - i.e. innate, not peripheral, not ancillary, not an afterthought or learned behavior - to who we are as human beings. We are born with them. We grow into them. We make them every day, some without any discernible thought. Our beliefs may change through time but we should not think ourselves immune to beliefs because we do not classify our own with the same negative stigma we do another's beliefs.

With regard to Meyer's books (and the movies based on them), we do well to return to her thoughts, her perspectives, and her reasons for writing them. Reviews that assume say more about our beliefs than hers, and assumptions... well, you know how that little saying goes.

According to the Wikipedia page for the book, Breaking Dawn, Meyers' influences were in fact from Shakespeare - The Merchant of Venice and A Midsummer Night's Dream to be precise. But the Twilight Wikipedia page is more thorough to this end and thus included here. What I wonder is how we are served as a society by re-contextualizing the art of an independent artist as our personal convictions and opinions hold. As a youth minister, I regularly use media (whether video or music, and it doesn't have to wear the "Christian" label to be used) to relate a scriptural perspective. I do not imbue the medium with scriptural significance if the artist lists no intent there, nor do I suggest that scripture proverbially lives on through a piece of modern art.

I think it's telling that not ONE review I read purported to quote Stephenie regarding her views, political or otherwise. I don't recall hearing of Meyer's "I just thought about the plight of the unborn and decided to write a book that would hopeful give them a chance at life" public statement being released for criticism. Some might say it's wrong to impose our agendas on another's words or work and judge them with these assumptions in mind. I would agree with them.

For my part, I appreciated the books and movies (thus far) for what they appear to be to me - a modern retelling of the star-crossed lovers, Romeo & Juliet. Well, that and a timely rebuke against the neoconservatism spreading out to engulf the young in its tidal sweep of ageism and its structurally protective move to deny young adults the rights and privileges of their more seasoned counterparts. But then again... maybe that's just me reading something into the story that wasn't there in the first place.

Entitled to Ease, Pt. 2

In my first post on the subject, Entitled to Ease, I addressed how the Occupy Wall Street movement has taken the country by storm. I argued that being comfortable can be a blessing and a curse in one, and that those without perspective are in real danger of harming themselves in the long run. I have enjoyed the unfolding events of the Occupy movement and have become even more convinced that the few who truly need help are being drowned out by the many who want help.

Well, Bill Whittle is at it again and has broken down the character traits - Imagination, Ambition, Skill, Work Ethic, & Perseverance - he believes the primarily young and listless crowd of protesters are lacking:




Now, I wouldn't say it's as easy as separating these problems into the five categories listed - issues are often complicated and black and white works in some areas better than others. But I do appreciate how he acknowledges that there are some with legitimate concerns (say, 1% of the Occupiers) and yet many more who are simply the current generation's version of ambulance chasers (the other 99% of Occupiers). They look for a fight or a cause, they look for a hand-out, and they do it with ulterior motives in the name of something that is actually worthwhile. As Whittle says, there are many who would join this fight against corporate greed and abuse of lower classes were it not for the assaults, rape, antisemitism, childish antics (yes, there are reports that an Occupier defecated on the steps of a bank), and "temper tantrum lawlessness" that typifies this movement. Yes, typifies - these are not the few, the down-side to this movement, but the mass of the movement. He even goes so far as to claim that the responsibility for this generation's sense of entitlement belongs to his generation. They've simply made things too easy for them.

But the argument still exists. It is no surprise that Hollywood's elite (anyone want to explain this one to me?) - people like Bill Mayer, Susan Sarandon, Roseanne Barr, etc.  - have jumped on the bandwagon to defend the spirit of the movement without the slightest idea of the movement's heart. At the heart? The Have's against the Have Not's. Pointing out the inevitable segregation that tends to "materialize out of nowhere" when people try to form a society, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show has a humorous take on the Occupy Movement that is definitely worth the time to check out.

I am reminded of this when I get another e-mail about upcoming litigation against Macintosh or Microsoft or Walmart or Netflix... there have been others but I don't recall them offhand. Where do people get all the time to proceed with such costly and time-wasting litigation? Is it not the entitled, hope for a hand-out, scratch off a lottery ticket and hope for a pay-out mentality? It seems that there are more and more people who hope to receive something - anything - for nothing, and they will go to great lengths to acquire it. Imagine the possibilities if such energy was directed at hard, honest gain!

To show another, important side of this issue is to take a look at the anger over those who have less toward those who have more. Said like that, not many discerning people - American or otherwise - would have a problem saying "that's not reason enough to be angry." Sure, that's just greed of another sort, envy and covetousness about another's possessions. Cue my excitement when I saw this:




The graphs Bill mentions - showing the differences between the rich and poor of the nation - are worth showing again here and can be found on the website (and the findings in greater detail) for The Heritage Foundation: Leadership For America.

As Bill suggested, seeing the similarities are easier if you see them side by side - and if I had some image overlay software I would do that as well, but this will have to suffice:

It is altogether possible that seeing such things could make people very angry. I imagine it would make me angry too if my concern for my being comparatively poor was uncovered as the root for rallying against the rich. If the light is shown on me, there are only two categories of outcomes: 1) the wrong done to me will be found out or 2) the wrong I have done will be found out. And no one likes to admit they are wrong. Only on the other side, when we have been restored and can look back on our past circumstances, is it safe to say that we were wrong. But for someone to tell us we're in the very act of being wrong... well, that's just - no one likes a know-it-all.... you know?

Now, it's not my purpose to turn these verbal/statistical guns on the poor, pushing people's peniaphobia (think, poor-aphobia - you learn something new every day!) to new heights. I don't want to decrease anyone's giving to those who are in need. I also don't want anyone who is currently not giving to those in need to feel justified in their stinginess by reading my blog - who am I? I'm nobody. Don't use me, or anyone else, to be a miser and treat everything you have and acquire as yours by the sole sweat of your personal brow, with no help from anyone else. That kind of perspective is cancerous.

What I do endeavor to do here is encourage people to think of the direction of their compassion, and actually increase their giving with wisdom and thankfulness. Give to those in need in a way that is compassionate and helpful, not just easy. Giving money to a living, breathing person is easy, but you could be inadvertently be enabling more addictive behavior. Be compassionate enough to look deeply, see a need, and respond. Empower the poor around you. Give razors, clean clothes, food, personal cleaning and hygiene supplies, and so on - and that's only the people who are on the streets. For people in homes or apartments who struggle, the means of wisely practicing generosity only go up.

I admit, I continue to struggle with the "answer" to giving to others in need. I have been there, and it sucks. As I posted in the first Entitled to Ease, feeling like you can't provide for your family is horrible, so my previous experiences have created a compassion in me for those less fortunate. I want to help them, and yet I do also struggle with whether or not my compassion leads me fool-hardily into doing something that actually damages them in the long run. I want to help, not to enable; I want to serve, not to pacify. I want to feel good about blessing others, not to bless others so I'll feel good about myself. One argues it's not our job to discern thoughts or motives, just to give. Another argues we should be wise and gentle. I am trying to practice the balance of the latter, while the former seems more a technique to coerce blind giving. I believe we are called to be wise with the resources we are given, or they will quickly flee us and be given to others. I know saying so may be frowned upon, but giving to everyone who has need is not always good and sometimes people are not truly helped until they have been allowed to hit rock bottom.

However, we should still have concern for those who fall under the first category, those who have truly been wronged and desperately need assistance. These are the people who will work hard with you to get from their poverty to self-sufficiency for them and their family. The two may not always easily be distinguished, but their true colors will eventually show. If you teach someone how to fish, do they appreciate your effort to help them and consider the possibilities from there... or do they just want a fish?

PETA: At It Again

Taking Fun To A Whole New Level
Walking through Facebook today, checking the haps of my youth and answering their occasional posts to me, I came across an interesting article I felt compelled to check for accuracy. Surely this is a joke. Surely they wouldn't... but yes, it's true. PETA - which stands for 'People Against The Treatment of Animals as it...' wait, no, it's 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' - is at it again. This time they are leveling their extremist gun barrels at...

• People with YouTube videos of chickens fighting or disturbed teens biting the heads off of little puppies?
• Hunters ripping skins off of bears in the wild and licking the bloody side before leaving the bear's naked frame and meat there to rot?
• Or someone pulling a dog down the street as it's tied to the rear bumper of a car? 

Though a Facebook picture would suggest the last was true, I made up the first two but would side with anyone who thought such acts were deplorable. I am not for cruelty toward, or wanton destruction of, any of God's creations - people, animals, or the earth - but this is not what PETA is after today. No, none of these but rather...

Mario. I don't know the last name, because in the video game world he's known only as Mario, brother to Luigi, saver of princesses and conqueror of worlds. No last name. Or at least not one I know of or will spend any amount of time looking up.
 
What I will address is how ridiculous PETA is for setting their sites on a video game in their efforts to force their agenda down everyone else's throats.

Screen shot from the PETA-approved and site-sponsored game.

By clicking on the homicidal picture of a beloved fantasy character, one is transported from a land of fantasy (jumping higher than humanly possible, walking into flowers, leaves, and coins to gain more life or super powers) to a land of gore and extremist ideology (blood dripping from an animal skin that hangs from Mario's flying body, a de-skinned Tanooki running after Mario, even blood-stained pipes to hop over). One can play this PETA-approved game with the above specs and see the blood-red background and pictures of animals in various stages of blood-letting as he or she plays.

PETA doesn't leave anything up to guesswork, stating on their site once the picture is clicked, "When on a mission to rescue the princess, Mario has been known to use any means necessary to defeat his enemy—even wearing the skin of a raccoon dog to give him special powers. Tanooki may be just a "suit" in Mario games, but in real life, tanuki are raccoon dogs who are skinned alive for their fur. By wearing Tanooki, Mario is sending the message that it's OK to wear fur. Play Super Tanooki Skin 2D and help Tanooki reclaim his fur!" Now, I confess I'm not willing to go to the local library to research the veracity of the "skinned alive" claim, nor am I willing to methodically search through all 560,000 Google search results. But I am on the side of PETA in saying that to do that would be cruel and unusual punishment of the tanuki. That being said, you may be asking yourself...

Reaction & Hyperbole
"What is the point? Certainly PETA is not advocating entertainment at the expense of those poor, digitized Tanooki's just to make a point, right?" ... Right? I find the image of a PETA-supporter hunched over their keyboard, alternately cheering and crying as the horrifically animated scenes of death roll past, rather comical - oh, but they got another bloody coin!! Yes. Yes, I'm afraid I did say 'bloody coin.' They went all out for this game.


I don't want anyone to think I'm being reactionary here. I certainly am not accusing PETA of using hyperbole to make a point, or vilifying those who use or eat animal-based products to promote their agenda, or even lumping Nintendo with an "animal cruelty moniker" for lack of better material this month. Okay, I lied, I guess. I'm doing all of that, and likely giving them reason to attack me for those gruesomely fictitious examples above (which will no doubt encourage some sicko to do just that and bring the full wrath of PETA upon my bald-but-decidedly-good-looking pate). But I'm not reacting. Rather, I am acting to speak out against such bold and unapologetic attacks against anyone that enjoys a leather jacket, steak and potatoes, a bowl of clam chowder (wait, does PETA fight for clams too, or no?), or a celebratory plate of turkey and dressing over the upcoming Thanksgiving break. I am objecting to attempts to vilify me - and those like me - simply because I disagree with PETA's particular brand of extremism. What does PETA gain by painting meat-eaters (etc.) as people who destroy animals with faces twisted in sadistic pleasure? Why does your message portray me as one who takes sick pleasure in watching the life of another living thing drain away? You could say "they don't do that," but they did it to Mario. And paint thrown on women wearing furs isn't fantasy, but reality. Do these hyperbolic tactics actually work on people?

Ideology & Sarcasm
In one article over PETA's overreaction, we read, "And here we thought Mario got the Power-Suit from a Super Leaf that transformed him into Tanooki Mario. Our mistake." Our mistake indeed. The author actually mentions one of Mario's earlier costumes - that of a bee - as a possible next target for the animal rights activists. The suggestion was foolish, for bees are not cute and thus do not fall under the Bambi-driven, Thumper-thumping* ideological banner of PETA. I do not believe PETA has concerted their efforts around the protection of defenseless mosquitoes, who are killed by the thousands - nay, millions - each year. And just for sport! They are not consistent in their animal-driven ideology, especially if there are those who wave the PETA flag but still consider the taking of another human life through abortion a woman's right to choose. No, we are not animals - I'm not saying that. But anyone who puts animals about sentient beings needs more protein in their diet. It's okay, we all make mistakes.

When contacted regarding their attack on Mario, PETA responded that the site has something for everyone, from the tasteless to the classy and respectful to irreverent. In the name of numbers, they profess to do what's needed to get the message out. Then they asked me to join the fight. I think they missed the point of my message. The top picture of PETA's front page website is an angry looking Mario holding a Tanooki and surrounded by blood - the very picture you see here. Now, it could be that I'm not observant enough, or haven't played my old school Nintendo recently enough, but I don't recall the Super Mario Brothers games being so given to gratuitous violence, even hatred, as PETA seems to imply on their site, and with this picture. I had no idea Mario was such a psychopathic killer. One has to wonder, when faced with such startling revelation, when the game producers will come up with a Mario at Columbine or Mario at Ground Zero to honestly address this murderous streak in what we once thought to be an imaginative character.

Imagination indeed. PETA actually has in their game a flying Mario draped in animal skin dripping blood. Play nice, kids! 

_________________________________________

And for those who are curious, yes, you can beat the game. PETA has a very classy ending... or is it irreverent? At any rate, I beat the game and got that loveable little tanooki his fur back. You can too, and I'm sure you could even beat my score! Screw you, Mario, and your little anti-animal cronies too!**

* Bambi and Thumper are not creations of the author but sole intellectual and property rights of Walt Disney Company and its yada yada, you get the point. 
** I'm kidding, Mario. I love you and all your Nintendo-generated cohorts. I know you're not violent, and kill defenseless little animals for the fun of it and to wear their hides. I know you and Luigi rarely have time to hunt, what with your plumbing business, and that your families depend on you to provide. But if you were to hunt I'm sure you would use gratefully what you killed for the survival of your families. We love you, even if PETA slanders your name. PS, do you have kids and, if so, is Uncle Luigi a hit when he picks them up and spins them? 

Entitled to Ease

Let me begin by calling this post, simply, what it is to me: self-condemnation. I am guilty of what I write below, but I consider myself (at least) wise enough to acknowledge the problem instead of blaming others. I also believe there are ways to correct the problem and yet I am not where I likely should be on that path because of my own choices - and in some cases, desires. These choices are mine and so I must also 'own' the problem that leads to my problems, and subsequent choices. The problem is ease.

I write this on a work-provided laptop in a comfortable apartment, with the fan and gentle hum of a refrigerator doing what they are designed to do, and I am not in the least worried about what (and certainly not whether or not) I will eat tonight. I am surrounded by ease, and honestly I like it.

I don't have to use this MacBook to type a post, but it's easier than doing it on my iPhone or iPad. I don't need a fan to keep me cool when I could easily wave one of my hundreds of books or DVD cases and get the same, albeit quicker and not as evenly dispersed, effect. I don't need a refrigerator but it cuts down on walks to the store. And I don't need to eat tonight - meaning I won't starve if I skip this meal - but I probably will because... that's what a mouth is for.

But mouths are also for speaking (etc.), and the world has taken notice of a specific group of speakers over the past several weeks. Beginning in New York and then spreading from there, major cities have followed rank and file the Occupy Wall Street movement. Much is being said about the movement, so that it could be hard to distinguish truth from fiction: corporations are evil and greedy; 99% of the people in America are tired of 1% holding all the money and power; the 99% are standing up and saying they're not going to take the injustice/greed/violence done by the 1% anymore; the richest are all Republicans that don't care about the rest of society; capitalism is bad; all occupiers are hippies/druggies/racists/bums; occupiers want the wealth of the hard-working rich to be redistributed so they get some without working to acquire it; occupiers are lazy Democrats/liberals; socialism and communism is what they're pushing, and both are bad; and the list goes on and on and on and...

There are numerous voices speaking, but I would ask if they deserve to be heard or are merely talking because they have the right to speak. If the latter is the case, why do we listen as though each person's points hold equal value? I know, it seems like an unfair, even harsh, thing to say. But there are times when political correctness only leads you to political avoidance of what really matters. Sentimentality would say all must be heard because every person has an opinion. Reason would say that one must earn the right to speak by doing so with wisdom, grace, and a worthwhile argument. When did we become afraid to draw out inconsistencies and say that not everyone's opinion is valid? Listen to what this one student has to say about a "value" that is important to him, and how his interviewer responds:




There are, however, voices out there that would speak against a "movement," who would speak out in reason when faced with a vocal minority like Occupy Wall Street and its state-specific off-shoots. One of them is Bill Whittle. I encourage you to watch his Afterburner video and, if you choose to, follow along with the transcript below.

"Well, hi everybody, I'm Bill Whittle, and this is Afterburner. Well, there are protestors in several major American cities using their iPads at Starbucks to make Facebook and Twitter updates on the evils of corporations and you don't know whether to laugh or cry, honestly. What we're seeing here, I think, are the self-esteem movement's chickens coming home to roost. These kids are upset because the $100,000's of debt they took on in order to get their degree in Bitterness Studies isn't paying off with a six figure job, and a car, and full benefits at an organic farm collective. I feel genuinely sorry for these people, I really do. These are people that are born under the asymptote - and I'll get to that in just a second.

You know, if you look deeply into human history, you'll see that every civilization collapses the same way. They're not overrun by barbarians - that happens later. No, they fail because of their success. Prosperity makes them lazy and breeds a sense of entitlement. They're trapped under the asymptote. Let me show you what I mean: here's an exponential curve - now, this is what life looks like for a growing and healthy civilization. You work hard and the quality of your life improves. Every day things not only get better - they get better faster. But then something happens: the prosperity curve becomes asymptotic. Things still get better, but by smaller and smaller and smaller amounts as time goes on.

These people don't know what they're protesting but I do. They're protesting the fact that they've never been hungry, never been cold, never been without TV and air conditioning in a car, they've always had a video game console and a laptop and a smart phone and they never ever had to do any long, hard, or real work for any of it. They were born into a level of prosperity so pervasive that the very idea of a difference in prosperity became vulgar and disgusting to them. These kids couldn't even become relatively more or less prosperous on the soccer field because having winners means having losers. And these precious snowflakes have been told how wonderful and unique they are their entire lives and everyone has always come in first place. Only now, they're out in the real world, and the real world keeps score.

You know, I could cure this asymptotic disease. I could stop the rise and fall of civilizations, I really believe I could. Because, at its core, this isn't about corporations or the economy or what they paid for their bad education. What it's really about is ingratitude. Ingratitude and entitlement and an utter lack of perspective. So, I'd provide some perspective and I'm afraid I'd have to do it by force.

You see, to cure this sickness I would take from every single American between the ages of 10 and 60, say, one percent of their life every year. There are 365 days in a year so one percent of that is 3.6 days so we'll just round it down. We'll say three and a half days. And during those three and a half days I would force everyone to live out in the woods in a cabin. I wouldn't make anyone chop wood - if you want to shiver through three nights that's your business. I'd make people carry their own water up from the river - hey, if you don't want to go through the trouble to boil it, be my guest. Recovering from amoebic dysentery will be part of your education. I'd make everybody grow and harvest their own food or dig up roots or collect berries. Or not. You can sit and complain about it and not eat for three and a half days if you'd prefer. And, like most modern Americans, I have a soft spot for little furry animals, but I would make people trap and kill and skin them in order to stay alive - that goes for chickens and fish as well.

You see, reality can be ugly and bloody and horrible. And that's something that those protesters have been protected from their entire lives, but not anymore. Play time is over now. Now I think that after three and a half days, days spent working hard, gathering food, chopping wood, and carrying water; night times spent with no iPad, no smart phone, no WiFi, no DVDs or Xboxes. I think that would be just enough to make people like this appreciate the fact that there are people out there who will do these things for you. I think three and a half days out there every year for fifty years would make you very grateful that there are groups of people willing to pump and purify your water, provide endless and affordable electrical power so you can be 72 degrees all the time. That there are people who will kill, clean, cook, package and deliver food so that you don't have to see the blood or the dirt - all of those things.

And that these groups of people who provide these services are called corporations. Who feed their own selves and their own families by doing these ugly, difficult, unpleasant things for you and charging more than it costs. There are people out there doing that right now, not for three and a half days, they do it every day. They're called farmers and they work for corporations called Kraft and Green Giant and Mon Santo. You should be grateful, and you should thank them. And there are people out in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea wrestling with steel beams the size of automobile transmissions in 60 mile an hour winds to bring up the oil to charge your iPad and run your AC and your Xbox and your Prius. They work for companies called Exxon and Shell and BP and you should be grateful and you should thank them. Now three and a half days is all I'd need. What those protesters need is to grow up.

After watching this video, I thought it worthwhile to search for the transcript online. Unable to find it, and much to the chagrin of my wife,  I then felt it worthwhile enough to transcribe it myself. I can't claim any part in writing it, but I claim every right to agree with it. We often feel entitled to things we have grown accustomed to for no other reason than we are accustomed to them. If we've had something in the past, and still want it, shouldn't it be ours? And if it's not - whether due to unfortunate circumstances, bad choices, laziness, apathy, or the subversive work of another to keep us from having it - shouldn't we be able to call 'foul' and play the victim and the oppressed?

These questions describe toddlers. More specifically, the thought processes of toddlers prior to becoming others-aware. Young children without the sense or the perspective to understand that sometimes what is hard or painful is not bad and what is easy or comfortable is not good. I have done much reading on children in the past year due to my having a son and wanting to be the best father I can be. I don't expect it to be easy - and in fact, it hasn't been - but I certainly expect that, without studying and doing the work, I will be worse at it for my lack of preparation. But, as it pertains to this movement, I wonder if people can truly defend their rants personally or if they're just circling the bandwagons and hoping to be a part of something bigger.

Forgive the language, but appreciate those who do work hard.

That is to say, I think people are thinking about these Occupy issues a lot, and yet I struggle to find any place where they are well thought out. There is certainly cause for those legitimately wronged by true, rather than supposed, greed (and its damaging consequences) to fight back; to stand against greed, corruption, corporate abuse of those in lower income brackets, and the like; but let's not be too hasty and wind up elevating the ignorant among the occupiers or crucifying the innocent among the elite. This, no matter our anger over those that do wrong, is indefensible. For instance, the affluence of our culture - which is a large rallying point in these public protests - has reenforced the very sedentary lifestyle that Andrew Weil says, in his new book Spontaneous Happiness, is actually bad for our health and our mental well-being. I wonder if such a dive in mental health is largely to blame for those who would rather rail against the people who make such large sums of money by what they do than get out there and work to make money themselves... even if that means doing work they consider to be 'beneath' them.

I know what it's like to be in want but also to be comfortable. I have had to rely on others in times of extreme need and I hated it. I hated feeling like I couldn't provide for myself or for my family. There is no worse feeling for a man, but I could not in good conscience turn the fault on someone (rich) or something (corporations) else. Right now, at this point in my life, I'm relatively comfortable. And this new movement makes me very wary of that feeling. I know I need to fight the subtle call to expect what I don't work for, or feel entitled to what I don't personally provide. We should all be wary of this.

So, what I want to hear from some of you is this: after taking a look at your life and honestly assessing what you use and enjoy and did relatively little to create or acquire, what do you feel entitled to? And more importantly, what are you going to spend Thanksgiving being thankful for? After all, that is what a mouth is for.

For those interested, I continue this dialog in Entitled to Ease, Pt. 2.

__________________________________
For those interested, here is more information on products listed above: