This morning my YouVersion devotional was about fear, and how we as Christians need to not be afraid. "...for God gave us a spirit not of fear, but of power and love and self-control." (2 Timothy 1:7)
Then, sadly, I had to go on Facebook and see the posts of a handful of friends, all of whom claim to be Christians, whining about whatever culture war battle seems to be terrifying them now. All posts rang out with a message of fear: they invite us to be angry, afraid, and generally pissed off at everybody and everything...though they in the end do nothing to make things better and certainly show nothing of God's power or love.
And so here's my mini-rant for this Monday morning. STOP BEING AFRAID OF EVERYTHING. Especially if you are a Christian, stop it with the endless whining about the culture war and instead live as you ought to. Stop being surprised that the world lives as it lives...I'm sorry you live with this myth that we live (or ever have lived!) in a Christian nation, because there really is no such thing. And stop being afraid of the world around you...you have the light of Jesus Christ in you, a treasure in your jar of clay (cf. 2 Cor. 4:7, Matthew 5:16).
So stop being afraid of the theoretical transgender boogeyman who is coming into your public bathroom; if you have to, go in packs for self-protection or just do your business at home. Stop listening to the loud shills who say that if we elect _______ America is dead (remember, Democrats survived eight years of Bush, and Republicans have survived eight years of Obama, no matter how much their voices may be gone from their screaming). Stop acting as if this world is all there is, because it's not...the kingdom of God will never fail.
Showing posts with label perceptions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label perceptions. Show all posts
Monday, April 25, 2016
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Cassette tapes and the uncoolness of my music
This week I took the painful step of throwing out my old cassette tapes. They had been thinned out over the years, but I still had a few dozen lining the shelves of my office, waiting for that last play that would never come. Over the years most of them have been replaced by CDs which in turn have been ripped to the hard drive of my computer and now conveniently sit on my iTunes account. A few of them I had lugged around from place to place over at least 30 years, but the last one (Foo Fighters: The Color and the Shape, thanks Lani!) was bought somewhere around 1998, itself symbolic of my lateness to newer and better tech. After I had deboxed them five or six years ago I had systematically listened to each one last time. Suzy Boggus, the Black Crows, Boston, and DC Talk all took me back to my younger days. A few had gone bad, as cassettes do, but most of them had survived.
Most of these cassettes, though, were bought before I started to encounter the musical snobs of my life. You know, the same people who this week are beside themselves that David Bowie has died. I'm not here to rip David Bowie, but it's always amazing to me when people find a not-quite-mainstream artist and judge all others according to his/her current hipness. I didn't own any David Bowie records, nor did I find myself rummaging through used vinyl shops to find a rarity from the Velvet Underground or very cooly describe how much Miles Davis influenced my worldview. No, for years I was happy with my little case of cassettes; it was music enough for me. I admit to owning a lot of music that was and remains decidedly uncool. Lots of Eagles, .38 Special, Huey Lewis, and Genesis. Once in awhile I had something that the snobs wouldn't snob about (hello, REM!), but generally my collection was not nearly as cool as people remember theirs as being. Even today the critics would shudder at my iTunes listing. There's a lot of John Denver, Air Supply, and Wings scattered about...and even worse, I am more content to get a lot of Greatest Hits (shudder) and not get worked up about not having the final track on an early Queen album.
But what's the problem, really? Why do we have to look down on what others like? Perhaps we can lay the blame for our snobbishness on awards shows. Whether it's the Emmys, Tonys, Oscars, or a thousand other lesser ones, we have to have this mindset that something, somewhere is extra special and deserves our adulation and what the common folk think is good is in fact vulgar and to be despised. Certainly, often times such shows may open our eyes to something we otherwise might not have looked at. But can't we still enjoy our Phil Collins and Peter Frampton without people thinking us worse for it?
A lot of people today have moved on from music snobbery to now being TV snobs. Likely this is more of a problem for me. I loved Mad Men and I refuse to watch the Bachelor with my wife. Yet I still can't get into Breaking Bad, even though I can see some value in it. I haven't watched The Wire, The Sopranos, or even New Girl. My Netflix watch list is filled with stuff that I like, not stuff that I will need to talk about around the watercooler (though I have no fellow employees, nor a watercooler). Would this be a good time to confess that I'm finally getting around to watching Glee with great glee?
As I get older the more I realize the futility of being cool. There will always be somebody discovering something new, and in all honesty I just don't have time to keep up. Life is hard enough as it is without trying to impress everybody with the things we don't really care about.
Most of these cassettes, though, were bought before I started to encounter the musical snobs of my life. You know, the same people who this week are beside themselves that David Bowie has died. I'm not here to rip David Bowie, but it's always amazing to me when people find a not-quite-mainstream artist and judge all others according to his/her current hipness. I didn't own any David Bowie records, nor did I find myself rummaging through used vinyl shops to find a rarity from the Velvet Underground or very cooly describe how much Miles Davis influenced my worldview. No, for years I was happy with my little case of cassettes; it was music enough for me. I admit to owning a lot of music that was and remains decidedly uncool. Lots of Eagles, .38 Special, Huey Lewis, and Genesis. Once in awhile I had something that the snobs wouldn't snob about (hello, REM!), but generally my collection was not nearly as cool as people remember theirs as being. Even today the critics would shudder at my iTunes listing. There's a lot of John Denver, Air Supply, and Wings scattered about...and even worse, I am more content to get a lot of Greatest Hits (shudder) and not get worked up about not having the final track on an early Queen album.
But what's the problem, really? Why do we have to look down on what others like? Perhaps we can lay the blame for our snobbishness on awards shows. Whether it's the Emmys, Tonys, Oscars, or a thousand other lesser ones, we have to have this mindset that something, somewhere is extra special and deserves our adulation and what the common folk think is good is in fact vulgar and to be despised. Certainly, often times such shows may open our eyes to something we otherwise might not have looked at. But can't we still enjoy our Phil Collins and Peter Frampton without people thinking us worse for it?
A lot of people today have moved on from music snobbery to now being TV snobs. Likely this is more of a problem for me. I loved Mad Men and I refuse to watch the Bachelor with my wife. Yet I still can't get into Breaking Bad, even though I can see some value in it. I haven't watched The Wire, The Sopranos, or even New Girl. My Netflix watch list is filled with stuff that I like, not stuff that I will need to talk about around the watercooler (though I have no fellow employees, nor a watercooler). Would this be a good time to confess that I'm finally getting around to watching Glee with great glee?
As I get older the more I realize the futility of being cool. There will always be somebody discovering something new, and in all honesty I just don't have time to keep up. Life is hard enough as it is without trying to impress everybody with the things we don't really care about.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Summer 2015: Breathe-a-thon
It's the middle of the summer, so that means a)vacation for a lot of people and b)the Supreme Court is handling down a boatload of rulings before they escape the summer heat of DC for a few weeks. It's always an exciting time for court watchers, but this year has been especially important, for in the past few weeks the court has legalized gay marriage nationwide, upheld Obamacare subsidies, made it easier for power companies to pollute, and kept as legal some of the more controversial lethal injection processes used to put to death the worst among us. There's a bunch more they are ruling on, but I don't feel like looking up everything on which they have graced us with their wisdom and/or stupidity.
As you might expect, this has led to a lot of people FREAKING THE CRAP OUT. While most of these issues will rarely affect any of us directly (though, in the case of the court finding the Obamacare subsidies legal, this will save me and my family a ton of money), What This Means For America has become the trending topic of the day.
If you are one of these people who have become irate or overjoyed, then, let me give you a few words of advice as we continue on through summer. It's hot, and I don't want you overheating or dehydrating because you can't take the time to relax and breathe and eat. Once you calm down, you can thank me.
-The apocalypse is not coming because the gays are married or people are getting cheaper health care or polluters feel more like polluting. If it was, the stars really would fall from the sky, the sun would rain down fire, and the moon would turn to blood. Last I looked up, though, this had not happened. But if it does and you have been proven right, you have my permission to spend the rest of eternity telling us how wrong we idiots were.
-These are not the best of times nor the worst of times, nor the darkest of all eras nor the beginning of a new age of enlightenment. Read a little bit of history, people. At least we're not actually shooting at others over a matter of whether it really is good to enslave people with dark skin color. At least the plague is not killing millions even as we are engaged in 'the war to end all wars'. At least rivers aren't on fire. At least the economy is not in shambles and we are wondering whether or not we can afford to ever eat lamb again. Are things perfect? No. But I'd rather live now and here than at most any other time and place of history.
-You are not moving to Canada or Costa Rica or Uganda or Sweden because some people did some things you don't like. Once you calm down, your life is going to go on and you will realize how silly you looked at your threats to leave. You are staying right here, just like everybody else. I know, you feel like America has left you. Wouldn't you be happier in a place in which people were not so environmentally destructive, or where gays were put 'where they belong'? Yes, we all dream of moving to a place in which business is truly free or where human life is respected rather than destroyed. But you're not moving. You wouldn't be able to get ESPN there, would you? Vacation there if you want, but remember, you're still an American.
Look, I'm not saying all this to denigrate what you believe, though I admit I am making fun of you, at least a little bit. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't worry or get upset about bad things happening. But I am saying that in the big picture, these things are really small potatoes. They really are, trust me on this. I know it seems like a big thing now, but in a few weeks you'll be outraged at something different. Some presidential candidate will say something racist or something that goes against party dogma, or another fanatic will shoot up a mall or school or church building, or your football team will try covering up how they shrunk the goal posts to make field goals harder to make. You'll be outraged about those things and have completely forgotten how distraught you were a few weeks earlier. Come back and read this again. Breathe. Realize that it's not worth getting so mad about. Go for a walk and tell God how much he needs to agree with your position. And then come home and hug your kids. You'll get through this.
Now, do we have that straight? Are you ready to calm down and breathe again and stop freaking out? Good. Now, go get me some ice cream. Chocolate chip cookie dough if they have it.
As you might expect, this has led to a lot of people FREAKING THE CRAP OUT. While most of these issues will rarely affect any of us directly (though, in the case of the court finding the Obamacare subsidies legal, this will save me and my family a ton of money), What This Means For America has become the trending topic of the day.
If you are one of these people who have become irate or overjoyed, then, let me give you a few words of advice as we continue on through summer. It's hot, and I don't want you overheating or dehydrating because you can't take the time to relax and breathe and eat. Once you calm down, you can thank me.
-The apocalypse is not coming because the gays are married or people are getting cheaper health care or polluters feel more like polluting. If it was, the stars really would fall from the sky, the sun would rain down fire, and the moon would turn to blood. Last I looked up, though, this had not happened. But if it does and you have been proven right, you have my permission to spend the rest of eternity telling us how wrong we idiots were.
-These are not the best of times nor the worst of times, nor the darkest of all eras nor the beginning of a new age of enlightenment. Read a little bit of history, people. At least we're not actually shooting at others over a matter of whether it really is good to enslave people with dark skin color. At least the plague is not killing millions even as we are engaged in 'the war to end all wars'. At least rivers aren't on fire. At least the economy is not in shambles and we are wondering whether or not we can afford to ever eat lamb again. Are things perfect? No. But I'd rather live now and here than at most any other time and place of history.
-You are not moving to Canada or Costa Rica or Uganda or Sweden because some people did some things you don't like. Once you calm down, your life is going to go on and you will realize how silly you looked at your threats to leave. You are staying right here, just like everybody else. I know, you feel like America has left you. Wouldn't you be happier in a place in which people were not so environmentally destructive, or where gays were put 'where they belong'? Yes, we all dream of moving to a place in which business is truly free or where human life is respected rather than destroyed. But you're not moving. You wouldn't be able to get ESPN there, would you? Vacation there if you want, but remember, you're still an American.
Look, I'm not saying all this to denigrate what you believe, though I admit I am making fun of you, at least a little bit. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't worry or get upset about bad things happening. But I am saying that in the big picture, these things are really small potatoes. They really are, trust me on this. I know it seems like a big thing now, but in a few weeks you'll be outraged at something different. Some presidential candidate will say something racist or something that goes against party dogma, or another fanatic will shoot up a mall or school or church building, or your football team will try covering up how they shrunk the goal posts to make field goals harder to make. You'll be outraged about those things and have completely forgotten how distraught you were a few weeks earlier. Come back and read this again. Breathe. Realize that it's not worth getting so mad about. Go for a walk and tell God how much he needs to agree with your position. And then come home and hug your kids. You'll get through this.
Now, do we have that straight? Are you ready to calm down and breathe again and stop freaking out? Good. Now, go get me some ice cream. Chocolate chip cookie dough if they have it.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Fox News Bias, A Brief Viewers' Guide
Recently I was speaking with an older gentleman whom I otherwise hold in high regard. Somehow we started talking about Fox News...he's an avid viewer and I think he was trying to relate a segment he had seen. I mentioned how I had no trust in Fox News, as it's is slanted so far towards a Tea Party/neoConservative point of view that it's hard to believe anything one sees on there. "Oh no, it's true. It's fair and balanced. It says that it is."
I didn't really have a good response to his, because when you're so totally believing that your own truth is infallible, how can you even imagine it to be otherwise? How can I point out the inherent bias on "Your World With Neil Cavuto" or "Fox and Friends" when it seems so benign to those who take it in everyday? It's not like they come out and admit any form of bias, or disclose to their viewers that they hold to a certain ideology. So how can we tell that this bias exists without driving ourselves crazy by having to watch this crap and point it out each time it happens?
I don't watch Fox News intentionally, but it seems to be on everywhere you go. I'll notice it is on the TV at the rec center, or be at somebody's house where it is has been left on, and so sometimes it will present itself to me even though I don't care for it. But I've noticed a few things that show its bias for anybody who is willing to see it.
(Necessary admission: Yes, every newschannel has their own bias. MSNBC tilts liberal in particular. I get it. But I live in a red state where far too many people assume Fox News is gospel truth. Where I live I don't have to deal with people regularly who think that because Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow said something that it must necessarily be true. If I did, I'd probably be just as annoyed with them and be writing about them. But I don't, so I won't.)
-1. What are the 10-word talking points up on screen during a segment? Because we live in such a distracted culture where we can't sit for even five minutes to listen to a segment, the producers of these news shows sum it up in 10 words or less in the bottom third of the screen (just above the 'crawl' section that makes people think they know what's going on in the world because they see a two-line summary of some huge event). For example, here's are some current headlines on FoxNews.com as I write on Friday afternoon (likely very similar to the on-screen points): "Dems reveal 2014 strategy to be smash and grab." "Under attack on all sides, Obama Democrats return to ramming speed." "Cost of offering health care might make some small businesses opt for fine." Three headlines, all painting democrats with a negative spin: they engage in smash and grab and ramming and their policies hurt business. What other takeaways can you get if you have the attention span of a moth? These expression are never overtly slanted...but the way they use words (and they are experts at this, I'll give them that) can shape the opinions their viewer form in very subtle ways.
-2. What kind of pictures do they put up of liberals? I've noticed this a lot more lately in social media and elsewhere. You can change perception by still pictures without even having to resort to photoshop. Most of the time when Fox News uses still images, Obama looks like he's about ready to puke, Hillary Clinton looks like a shrew, and Harry Reid looks like a wimp. No strong, positive pictures are available, I assume.
-3. At any given time, what are the other networks talking about? Here's a fun game (for sadists): at any given time, compare what CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are talking about. What they talk about during their 'in-depth' segments tell you about the narrative that they are trying to push. Today most channels are talking about the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. But as I was working out today the guy next to me who was watching Fox News on his machine was paying attention to the ways democrats are changing filibuster rules (unfair!) and more on the failures of Obamacare (incompetence!). Tell somebody in so many ways so many times and people will believe that this is the only way to tell the story.
-4. Who are the representative opponents who allow them to say see, we are fair and balanced because we let them talk? Yes, Fox News occasionally have liberals, but usually it's just a beaten-down Alan Colmes . Ever see a lumberjack match on pro wrestling, in which one guy is technically facing only one other guy but has a ton of people outside the ring knocking them around as well? That's what Fox News must be like for a liberal. In addition, most of the representative liberals I've noticed on there are not well-spoken; it's like they have taken the time to find the cheapest talking heads they can. Put them up against an expert from your side, and of course it will seem like that one point of view is markedly better. It's like comparing the Red Sox with the Wichita Wingnuts: don't be surprised if the Wingnuts aren't going to win a lot of games in a head-to-head competition.
The reality is that most people don't want to believe that their favorite point of view is a product of bias. We don't listen to what others have to say, and with the fractured 'narrowcasting' of news programs this separation only gets larger. But the first step of healing is the acknowledgment of the problem.
I didn't really have a good response to his, because when you're so totally believing that your own truth is infallible, how can you even imagine it to be otherwise? How can I point out the inherent bias on "Your World With Neil Cavuto" or "Fox and Friends" when it seems so benign to those who take it in everyday? It's not like they come out and admit any form of bias, or disclose to their viewers that they hold to a certain ideology. So how can we tell that this bias exists without driving ourselves crazy by having to watch this crap and point it out each time it happens?
I don't watch Fox News intentionally, but it seems to be on everywhere you go. I'll notice it is on the TV at the rec center, or be at somebody's house where it is has been left on, and so sometimes it will present itself to me even though I don't care for it. But I've noticed a few things that show its bias for anybody who is willing to see it.
(Necessary admission: Yes, every newschannel has their own bias. MSNBC tilts liberal in particular. I get it. But I live in a red state where far too many people assume Fox News is gospel truth. Where I live I don't have to deal with people regularly who think that because Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow said something that it must necessarily be true. If I did, I'd probably be just as annoyed with them and be writing about them. But I don't, so I won't.)
-1. What are the 10-word talking points up on screen during a segment? Because we live in such a distracted culture where we can't sit for even five minutes to listen to a segment, the producers of these news shows sum it up in 10 words or less in the bottom third of the screen (just above the 'crawl' section that makes people think they know what's going on in the world because they see a two-line summary of some huge event). For example, here's are some current headlines on FoxNews.com as I write on Friday afternoon (likely very similar to the on-screen points): "Dems reveal 2014 strategy to be smash and grab." "Under attack on all sides, Obama Democrats return to ramming speed." "Cost of offering health care might make some small businesses opt for fine." Three headlines, all painting democrats with a negative spin: they engage in smash and grab and ramming and their policies hurt business. What other takeaways can you get if you have the attention span of a moth? These expression are never overtly slanted...but the way they use words (and they are experts at this, I'll give them that) can shape the opinions their viewer form in very subtle ways.
-2. What kind of pictures do they put up of liberals? I've noticed this a lot more lately in social media and elsewhere. You can change perception by still pictures without even having to resort to photoshop. Most of the time when Fox News uses still images, Obama looks like he's about ready to puke, Hillary Clinton looks like a shrew, and Harry Reid looks like a wimp. No strong, positive pictures are available, I assume.
-3. At any given time, what are the other networks talking about? Here's a fun game (for sadists): at any given time, compare what CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are talking about. What they talk about during their 'in-depth' segments tell you about the narrative that they are trying to push. Today most channels are talking about the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. But as I was working out today the guy next to me who was watching Fox News on his machine was paying attention to the ways democrats are changing filibuster rules (unfair!) and more on the failures of Obamacare (incompetence!). Tell somebody in so many ways so many times and people will believe that this is the only way to tell the story.
-4. Who are the representative opponents who allow them to say see, we are fair and balanced because we let them talk? Yes, Fox News occasionally have liberals, but usually it's just a beaten-down Alan Colmes . Ever see a lumberjack match on pro wrestling, in which one guy is technically facing only one other guy but has a ton of people outside the ring knocking them around as well? That's what Fox News must be like for a liberal. In addition, most of the representative liberals I've noticed on there are not well-spoken; it's like they have taken the time to find the cheapest talking heads they can. Put them up against an expert from your side, and of course it will seem like that one point of view is markedly better. It's like comparing the Red Sox with the Wichita Wingnuts: don't be surprised if the Wingnuts aren't going to win a lot of games in a head-to-head competition.
The reality is that most people don't want to believe that their favorite point of view is a product of bias. We don't listen to what others have to say, and with the fractured 'narrowcasting' of news programs this separation only gets larger. But the first step of healing is the acknowledgment of the problem.
Friday, March 1, 2013
We hate who we are told to hate
One of my favorite news stories from the past week was the tale of Dennis Rodman going to North Korea and meeting their new leader and watching basketball games with him. This story delights me on so many levels.
-First, I've watched far too much of the Stone/Parker world to not at least consider that that maybe Rodman was sent in as a secret agent to kill whichever Kim Jong this happens to be. You could just picture it...they're sitting courtside or at a dinner buffet or are playing on one of his water slides and all of a sudden Rodman pulls out a knife and stabs him. Wouldn't that be amazing, to see something like that? I'm not hoping for it as I believe murder of any stripe to be wrong...but could you imagine the 'wha?' factor on it? Our country has been trying to bump him off for years, but the job finally gets done by a washed up basketball player with an alleged history of mental illness? Yeah, nuclear war would await. Bad idea.
-Second, Dennis Rodman, documentary filmmaker. I guess Ken Burns was busy.
-And finally, this story reminds me that we believe what we are told to believe. One of the fascinating subplots has been the interviews of Rodman after he came out. Kim is a great guy, Rodman says, and everybody goes nuts. Now, of course, we have to consider the source. Rodman is one of the more annoying public figures of recent history, even though he played at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, and according to an old friend of mine who went to school there the same time Rodman did, was a thief who would steal stuff from dorm rooms. But everybody is going nuts that Rodman hasn't jumped up on the bandwagon that this guy is a madman, a lunatic, a terrorist. Instead, Kim Jong Un is 'an awesome dude' and has a friend for life in Rodman.
We assume that just because we have been told for years and years that North Korea is an enemy and that its leaders are nuts that it has to be true. But is it? Foreign policy in our life seems to about knowing who your friends and your enemies are and keeping that list where everybody can see it. We are friends with Saudi Arabia and the many terrorists it keeps producing, but we are enemies with Cuba because the Cuban exiles can't forgive the Castros for what happened a half-century ago? We act like teenage girls who hold grudges because somebody wore the same pair of shoes. What's really insane?
Sometimes I think our political bosses need to hire in the WWE writers who make heels and faces turn overnight. Then maybe we could more reasonably assess how we look at the people in this world we've been told to love or hate.
-First, I've watched far too much of the Stone/Parker world to not at least consider that that maybe Rodman was sent in as a secret agent to kill whichever Kim Jong this happens to be. You could just picture it...they're sitting courtside or at a dinner buffet or are playing on one of his water slides and all of a sudden Rodman pulls out a knife and stabs him. Wouldn't that be amazing, to see something like that? I'm not hoping for it as I believe murder of any stripe to be wrong...but could you imagine the 'wha?' factor on it? Our country has been trying to bump him off for years, but the job finally gets done by a washed up basketball player with an alleged history of mental illness? Yeah, nuclear war would await. Bad idea.
-Second, Dennis Rodman, documentary filmmaker. I guess Ken Burns was busy.
-And finally, this story reminds me that we believe what we are told to believe. One of the fascinating subplots has been the interviews of Rodman after he came out. Kim is a great guy, Rodman says, and everybody goes nuts. Now, of course, we have to consider the source. Rodman is one of the more annoying public figures of recent history, even though he played at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, and according to an old friend of mine who went to school there the same time Rodman did, was a thief who would steal stuff from dorm rooms. But everybody is going nuts that Rodman hasn't jumped up on the bandwagon that this guy is a madman, a lunatic, a terrorist. Instead, Kim Jong Un is 'an awesome dude' and has a friend for life in Rodman.
We assume that just because we have been told for years and years that North Korea is an enemy and that its leaders are nuts that it has to be true. But is it? Foreign policy in our life seems to about knowing who your friends and your enemies are and keeping that list where everybody can see it. We are friends with Saudi Arabia and the many terrorists it keeps producing, but we are enemies with Cuba because the Cuban exiles can't forgive the Castros for what happened a half-century ago? We act like teenage girls who hold grudges because somebody wore the same pair of shoes. What's really insane?
Sometimes I think our political bosses need to hire in the WWE writers who make heels and faces turn overnight. Then maybe we could more reasonably assess how we look at the people in this world we've been told to love or hate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)