"Since we cannot know all that there is to be known about anything, we ought to know a little about everything." - Blaise Pascal
***
Comments on "Fantastic Technique" and "Amazing Ability": Hilary Hahn Plays Der Erlkoenig:
123mortimer: [This piece is arranged by] Wilhelm Ernst (1814 - 1865), a post-Paganini violin virtuoso. Before a recent crop of young violinists (including Ingolf Turban, Leila Josefowicz, Hilary Hahn) put it in their repertoire, it wasn't played much. It's amoing the absolutely hardest pieces for the instrument (with Ernst's Last Rose, Wieniawski's Variations on Austrian Anthem, and a few others). It's as absurdly difficult as the Godowski transcriptions of the Chopin etudes are for pianists...
The question is what do you mean by "difficult"? For mere mortals, difficult means: can we approximate some sort of adequate rendition of the piece? For people like Hahn, the issue of a piece's difficulty is totally different, having to do with the meaning of the piece and its technical realization. At Hahn's level, everything is both easy and transcendentally difficult.
cromulentinnoc3nce: I only refer to the objective difficulty of playing the correct notes, rhythms, articulations, dynamics.. just what's written on the page. Subjective difficulty is another thing, one that is much more difficult to compare. If we take that into account, one might argue that a Mozart concerto is more difficult than this.
123mortimer: I think you're right. For Hahn and other musicians at her level, it is undoubtedly true that Mozart (or Bach) is much harder than Ernst. Wilhelm Backhaus gave an interview about 100 years ago, in which he complained that he'd get all these huge ovations for some spectacular Liszt or Chopin that'd taken him a week to learn, but no more than polite appreciation for a Mozart Sonata that took a year or more to master.
MFM: it's true
liszt and chopin have a lot of surface movement but to play mozart well you have to have understanding, not just technique
I dunno why but it seems a lot of pianists friends worship chopin, while I find him unremarkable
L'origine de Bert
Saturday, July 12, 2008
"The best car safety device is a rear-view mirror with a cop in it." - Dudley Moore
***
On Bechdel Movie Measure (a claim that women not getting equal screentime with men is a pressing example of sexism):
Me: I guess, if anything else, this shows that feminism has succeeded, since they're down to complaining about this sort of things and applying literature skills to see repression everywhere.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
It's no wonder Sylvia Lim buys into the "myth" of feminists burning bras.
"There's a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the United states--millions of dollars... The activists aren't there to help women come to terms with what's happening in their lives. They're there to fund their budgets, their conferences, their traveling abroad, and their statements against men" - Erin Pizzey, founder of the movement against domestic violence
A: Heh. I don't know whether to be amused or annoyed at your ad hominem attacks on... feminism in general. I would agree that not getting enough screen time as men, while not overtly fitting our views of what "repression" or "oppression" (perhaps a better word when talking about sexism or racism) should be, is a form of oppression, and not a trivial one at that. So much of our views are unconsciously shaped by the media that I think it's important to be aware of that phenomenon. So this Bechdel Movie Measure is an interesting thought exercise, nothing more - but I guess it does illustrate an important point that women are no more than accessories in many movies. Conversely, when the positions are flipped and men are nothing more than accessories in a film - cue Sex and the City - the mostly male critics come out in force to denounce the women as fluff and puff and relate them to the (pathetic) State of the American Woman. I've never read such vitriol directed at a movie. And you know what? The reviews wouldn't have been the same if the movie wasn't about women. No male critic has denounced the uber-macho-ness of Rambo or compared him to a "Taliban recruitment video", as one male critic did for SATC.
Me: I assume you're referring to the quote from Erin Pizzey. As the founder of the movement against domestic violence, I'd assume that her credentials are, even if not impeccable, at least there. For one, she was commenting on activists about domestic violence, not feminists (though apparently she does call the women's movement "that whole coven of witches"). And the reason why she said that was because she did research into violence against men is that her book was greeted with a lot of hostility, the publisher and she got death threats (and she got bomb scares at her house) and her London hotel got picketed by 300 screaming protestors - all because she dared to prick feminist orthodoxy.
Given that feminism is fundamentally contradictory, often blinkered, is an excuse for much man-bashing and many self-described feminists indulge in statistical skulduggery and sometimes outright lies, it is not clear that the attacks are unwarranted.
Pretentions to being against 'patriarchy' and not men are like Christian claims to "love the sinner, hate the sin" - the line is fuzzy, people get bashed anyway and the enemy might not even exist.
What is 'oppression'?
"arbitrary and cruel exercise of power"
"The state of being oppressed" where "oppressed" means "to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority"
"A feeling of being heavily weighed down in mind or body."
Perhaps the last would qualify, but then we could just as well say that Scientologists are being oppressed by Xenu.
If you want to say that our views are shaped by the media, fine. But calling it 'oppression' is an insult to the truly oppressed, just as calling abortion a "Holocaust" mocks the Jews, Gypsies and others who died in that tragedy.
I grant that our views are shaped by the media. But this has been exaggerated for political reasons. There was a documentary on violence in Power Rangers where the kids were shown imitating the moves from the show, but the reporter interviewed the kids and they clearly understood that what they saw on the show was fictional.
Your claim puts you in the same boat as the Great Leader, who refused to allow the Grand Prix into Singapore because he thought it would encourage speeding.
Furthermore, to cite media representation as some example of injustice would mean that advertising and even the world around us (notice how phallic a cactus looks?) are conspiring to screw with our minds and thereby 'oppressive'.
Feminists like to claim that they are gender-blind: it doesn't matter if you are male or female - you're just a person.
Yet, when it comes to the issue of representation, they suddenly turn around and say that it *does* matter. If men outnumber women, this is clear evidence of oppression/discrimination.
Leaving aside areas where women outnumber men (eg rate of survival in war, longer life expectancy, comfortable office jobs vs sweating in the hot sun) and underlying distributional issues which lead to different distributions (eg women are not as interested in science and maths, and so don't do engineering), this is a bizarre volte face.
It seems men and women are both people - unless men are, or seem to be, privileged.
SATC. This is a very interesting example.
Why are the women denounced as fluff and puff? Because they are fluff and puff.
Some enlightening comments on it: (quotes from previous post)
If we had SATC with the genders reversed, I would venture that the critics would still be livid. It's not about men being nothing more than accessories in the film, it's about the main characters of the film being shallow. And panning of shallow characters and unrealism is something you see in reviews of normal films, not just feminst (?) ones like SATC.
Does it help that even "Sarah Jessica Parker decribed her "Sex and the City" character Carrie Bradshaw as a narcissist"?
Some words from male critics about Rambo IV:
*many extracts denouncing the uber-macho-ness of Rambo*
A: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/438271
"Why isn’t anybody calling out movie producers for their assumption that all it takes to get male movie-goers to the box office is car chases, explosions and breasts? If thousands of men flock to see the latest action flick, why isn’t that film’s very success suddenly a mark against it and proof that all men are shallow and vapid?
The Star article sums it up nicely:
“I can actually think of a rough male equivalent for SATC. It’s a film franchise about a man with a huge ego and unfettered sense of entitlement, who cavorts with people who have spectacular budgets for clothes, cars and travel. Our hero consumes vast quantities of liquor and caviar and thinks nothing of trashing his high-priced toys.
His name is James Bond. His 22nd movie, Quantum of Solace, is currently being filmed. And when it is released this fall, you won’t find anybody seriously suggesting that the enjoyment of it is a chance to get men out of the house, a degrading of the national IQ or a recruitment opportunity for the Taliban.”
Sure, lots of critics deride the senseless violence in Rambo - but nobody has even compared it to the American male or caricatured the male movie goers to Rambo. Whereas any female who goes to watch SATC is stupid and vapid and only cares about shoes? For the record I thought SATC was decent - not a great movie by any means, and a lot longer than it should have been - but an entertaining piece of fluff.
Me: James Bond has been endlessly critiqued. In fact, the films from the 90s onwards contain some measure of self-reflexive criticism. [A female] M unbraids James as a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur - a relic of the Cold War", and tells him that "Remember shadows stay in front or behind. Never on top". I don't think SATC contains any "oh we're brainless women who buy shoes" moments?
In any case, Bond is useful, unlike the women in SATC. He saves the world. The women in SATC buy shoes and emo.
There is plenty of critique of [male] film in feminist texts (I'll be interested to read what feminist film critics say about SATC actually), but I'm guessing you're looking for something more mainstream than that. I know I've read critiques of action films before, of them having unrealistic plots, characters you don't care about etc, but the marginal disutility of plowing through even MORE film reviews is distinctly unappealing. One thing I *did* gleam from all those Rambo film reviews was that when you go to watch Rambo (and presumably similar films, though some have more artistic merit) you know what you're going for and revel in the simple world of action and gore. Besides, we already know that men suck ;)
Incidentally, that terrorist person got slammed by everyone left right and centre, while those feminists who write nonsense (eg the toilet thing) aren't (at least not by everyone).
On media influence, I like this:
"He admits that some hip-hop lyrics display an ungentlemanly attitude towards women, but he doubts that listening to violent lyrics causes people to behave more violently. If it did, there would be more opera fans stabbing their ex-lovers outside bullfights."
B:
Is it any help at all to speak of feminists in general?
There are many 'types' of feminists. Are those who call themselves feminists mostly Feminists? Or are the latter in the minority?
Every time I watch or view an advertisement on Skin-whitening lotions it affirms my belief that there is still much for feminists to do in Singapore. Every time a female colleague reveals the usual anxieties about being single, about 'being left on the shelf', as if there is nothing to life other than getting married and having children, increases my sympathy for the apparently 'extreme' positions and stances of feminists, maybe sometimes even Feminists.
And every time a traditional female stereotype is reinforced, paraded, upheld, affirmed, the corresponding male stereotypes are also affirmed. The dominant ideology of gender types defines men and women, female and male, as 'opposites'. By not undermining, or rather, revealing these stifling stereotypes for what they are (socially constructed and not given, as unchangeable), men/males are also 'forced' (perhaps indoctrinated is better) into narrow gender roles and types.
Me: "All generalizations are wrong". Is it any help at all to speak of neoconservatives in general? Christians in general? Americans in general? Singaporeans in general?
What is your distinction between feminists and Feminists?
I am all for promoting personal autonomy, but then this brings into question another set of issues.
Feminism claims to trumpet personal autonomy, yet with the claim about social 'oppression', another paradox is revealed. If we are so influenced by social forces, what decisions are truly ours? If a woman growing up in a conservative African tribe wants to circumcise herself, can we say that she is truly free? If a woman who has grown up in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, gets raped and wants to keep the child, is she truly making the decision on her own choice?
Conversely, is a woman growing up in a feminist environment truly free? Is she a feminist because she believes in feminism, or is she a feminist because she has been socialised into becoming one?
When questioning personal autonomy, the buck has to stop somewhere, for logistical reasons, if nothing else.
B: To me feminists with the capital 'F' are those who identify themselves firstly as feminists, followed by human, woman/man, etc. They are militant and aggressive with respect to feminist agendas. Feminists with the lower case 'f' identify themselves as feminists only when necessary, and usually only when the opportunity arises for them to advocate feminist agendas constructively, etc. They don't think of themselves as feminists first, but rather as human beings, citizens, parents, sisters, etc. They recognize the value of feminist causes, but they acknowledge that there are/could also be more 'universal', important, values to uphold.
Personal autonomy and social 'oppression' are not mutually exclusive. One can be autonomous in one's intentions, actions, and inner thoughts and yet be socially 'oppressed' by the gender preconceptions of other people.
We can be socially 'oppressed' and influenced directly, as for say, younger people. I don't refer to the simplistic and reductionistic just-watch-TV-and-become-corrupted simplistic model of influence (in the moralistic vein of violence on TV), but rather in the subtle psycho-social effects of constantly seeing only particular representations of gender roles and types in the media.
We can also be indirectly 'oppressed', socially. For instance you are perfectly free to grow your hair to any length, or in any style, but the relationships which you can have, the social opportunities made available to you caused by the rigid gender presuppositions of other people may be fewer, perhaps especially in Singapore/Malaysia/Southeast Asia. People cast judgements on you, avoid associating (or avoid taking the initiative to associate) with you, or give you fewer/different treatment because you don't conform to their stereotypes, and make them feel uncomfortable, subversive.
Me: As I said, how do you disentangle the effects of 'oppression' from what the person would have done if not 'oppressed'? The disencumbered self is incoherent, since our very being is shaped by our experiences and socialization. Also, one could view feminism as an 'oppression' of its own, since it influences people's thoughts and societal expectations.
I do not believe in Libertarian Free Will, but on an operational level we must concede that Free Will exists, or the Universal Acid burns all the way through, and does not stop where we want it to.
***
On Bechdel Movie Measure (a claim that women not getting equal screentime with men is a pressing example of sexism):
Me: I guess, if anything else, this shows that feminism has succeeded, since they're down to complaining about this sort of things and applying literature skills to see repression everywhere.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
It's no wonder Sylvia Lim buys into the "myth" of feminists burning bras.
"There's a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the United states--millions of dollars... The activists aren't there to help women come to terms with what's happening in their lives. They're there to fund their budgets, their conferences, their traveling abroad, and their statements against men" - Erin Pizzey, founder of the movement against domestic violence
A: Heh. I don't know whether to be amused or annoyed at your ad hominem attacks on... feminism in general. I would agree that not getting enough screen time as men, while not overtly fitting our views of what "repression" or "oppression" (perhaps a better word when talking about sexism or racism) should be, is a form of oppression, and not a trivial one at that. So much of our views are unconsciously shaped by the media that I think it's important to be aware of that phenomenon. So this Bechdel Movie Measure is an interesting thought exercise, nothing more - but I guess it does illustrate an important point that women are no more than accessories in many movies. Conversely, when the positions are flipped and men are nothing more than accessories in a film - cue Sex and the City - the mostly male critics come out in force to denounce the women as fluff and puff and relate them to the (pathetic) State of the American Woman. I've never read such vitriol directed at a movie. And you know what? The reviews wouldn't have been the same if the movie wasn't about women. No male critic has denounced the uber-macho-ness of Rambo or compared him to a "Taliban recruitment video", as one male critic did for SATC.
Me: I assume you're referring to the quote from Erin Pizzey. As the founder of the movement against domestic violence, I'd assume that her credentials are, even if not impeccable, at least there. For one, she was commenting on activists about domestic violence, not feminists (though apparently she does call the women's movement "that whole coven of witches"). And the reason why she said that was because she did research into violence against men is that her book was greeted with a lot of hostility, the publisher and she got death threats (and she got bomb scares at her house) and her London hotel got picketed by 300 screaming protestors - all because she dared to prick feminist orthodoxy.
Given that feminism is fundamentally contradictory, often blinkered, is an excuse for much man-bashing and many self-described feminists indulge in statistical skulduggery and sometimes outright lies, it is not clear that the attacks are unwarranted.
Pretentions to being against 'patriarchy' and not men are like Christian claims to "love the sinner, hate the sin" - the line is fuzzy, people get bashed anyway and the enemy might not even exist.
What is 'oppression'?
"arbitrary and cruel exercise of power"
"The state of being oppressed" where "oppressed" means "to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority"
"A feeling of being heavily weighed down in mind or body."
Perhaps the last would qualify, but then we could just as well say that Scientologists are being oppressed by Xenu.
If you want to say that our views are shaped by the media, fine. But calling it 'oppression' is an insult to the truly oppressed, just as calling abortion a "Holocaust" mocks the Jews, Gypsies and others who died in that tragedy.
I grant that our views are shaped by the media. But this has been exaggerated for political reasons. There was a documentary on violence in Power Rangers where the kids were shown imitating the moves from the show, but the reporter interviewed the kids and they clearly understood that what they saw on the show was fictional.
Your claim puts you in the same boat as the Great Leader, who refused to allow the Grand Prix into Singapore because he thought it would encourage speeding.
Furthermore, to cite media representation as some example of injustice would mean that advertising and even the world around us (notice how phallic a cactus looks?) are conspiring to screw with our minds and thereby 'oppressive'.
Feminists like to claim that they are gender-blind: it doesn't matter if you are male or female - you're just a person.
Yet, when it comes to the issue of representation, they suddenly turn around and say that it *does* matter. If men outnumber women, this is clear evidence of oppression/discrimination.
Leaving aside areas where women outnumber men (eg rate of survival in war, longer life expectancy, comfortable office jobs vs sweating in the hot sun) and underlying distributional issues which lead to different distributions (eg women are not as interested in science and maths, and so don't do engineering), this is a bizarre volte face.
It seems men and women are both people - unless men are, or seem to be, privileged.
SATC. This is a very interesting example.
Why are the women denounced as fluff and puff? Because they are fluff and puff.
Some enlightening comments on it: (quotes from previous post)
If we had SATC with the genders reversed, I would venture that the critics would still be livid. It's not about men being nothing more than accessories in the film, it's about the main characters of the film being shallow. And panning of shallow characters and unrealism is something you see in reviews of normal films, not just feminst (?) ones like SATC.
Does it help that even "Sarah Jessica Parker decribed her "Sex and the City" character Carrie Bradshaw as a narcissist"?
Some words from male critics about Rambo IV:
*many extracts denouncing the uber-macho-ness of Rambo*
A: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/438271
"Why isn’t anybody calling out movie producers for their assumption that all it takes to get male movie-goers to the box office is car chases, explosions and breasts? If thousands of men flock to see the latest action flick, why isn’t that film’s very success suddenly a mark against it and proof that all men are shallow and vapid?
The Star article sums it up nicely:
“I can actually think of a rough male equivalent for SATC. It’s a film franchise about a man with a huge ego and unfettered sense of entitlement, who cavorts with people who have spectacular budgets for clothes, cars and travel. Our hero consumes vast quantities of liquor and caviar and thinks nothing of trashing his high-priced toys.
His name is James Bond. His 22nd movie, Quantum of Solace, is currently being filmed. And when it is released this fall, you won’t find anybody seriously suggesting that the enjoyment of it is a chance to get men out of the house, a degrading of the national IQ or a recruitment opportunity for the Taliban.”
Sure, lots of critics deride the senseless violence in Rambo - but nobody has even compared it to the American male or caricatured the male movie goers to Rambo. Whereas any female who goes to watch SATC is stupid and vapid and only cares about shoes? For the record I thought SATC was decent - not a great movie by any means, and a lot longer than it should have been - but an entertaining piece of fluff.
Me: James Bond has been endlessly critiqued. In fact, the films from the 90s onwards contain some measure of self-reflexive criticism. [A female] M unbraids James as a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur - a relic of the Cold War", and tells him that "Remember shadows stay in front or behind. Never on top". I don't think SATC contains any "oh we're brainless women who buy shoes" moments?
In any case, Bond is useful, unlike the women in SATC. He saves the world. The women in SATC buy shoes and emo.
There is plenty of critique of [male] film in feminist texts (I'll be interested to read what feminist film critics say about SATC actually), but I'm guessing you're looking for something more mainstream than that. I know I've read critiques of action films before, of them having unrealistic plots, characters you don't care about etc, but the marginal disutility of plowing through even MORE film reviews is distinctly unappealing. One thing I *did* gleam from all those Rambo film reviews was that when you go to watch Rambo (and presumably similar films, though some have more artistic merit) you know what you're going for and revel in the simple world of action and gore. Besides, we already know that men suck ;)
Incidentally, that terrorist person got slammed by everyone left right and centre, while those feminists who write nonsense (eg the toilet thing) aren't (at least not by everyone).
On media influence, I like this:
"He admits that some hip-hop lyrics display an ungentlemanly attitude towards women, but he doubts that listening to violent lyrics causes people to behave more violently. If it did, there would be more opera fans stabbing their ex-lovers outside bullfights."
B:
Is it any help at all to speak of feminists in general?
There are many 'types' of feminists. Are those who call themselves feminists mostly Feminists? Or are the latter in the minority?
Every time I watch or view an advertisement on Skin-whitening lotions it affirms my belief that there is still much for feminists to do in Singapore. Every time a female colleague reveals the usual anxieties about being single, about 'being left on the shelf', as if there is nothing to life other than getting married and having children, increases my sympathy for the apparently 'extreme' positions and stances of feminists, maybe sometimes even Feminists.
And every time a traditional female stereotype is reinforced, paraded, upheld, affirmed, the corresponding male stereotypes are also affirmed. The dominant ideology of gender types defines men and women, female and male, as 'opposites'. By not undermining, or rather, revealing these stifling stereotypes for what they are (socially constructed and not given, as unchangeable), men/males are also 'forced' (perhaps indoctrinated is better) into narrow gender roles and types.
Me: "All generalizations are wrong". Is it any help at all to speak of neoconservatives in general? Christians in general? Americans in general? Singaporeans in general?
What is your distinction between feminists and Feminists?
I am all for promoting personal autonomy, but then this brings into question another set of issues.
Feminism claims to trumpet personal autonomy, yet with the claim about social 'oppression', another paradox is revealed. If we are so influenced by social forces, what decisions are truly ours? If a woman growing up in a conservative African tribe wants to circumcise herself, can we say that she is truly free? If a woman who has grown up in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, gets raped and wants to keep the child, is she truly making the decision on her own choice?
Conversely, is a woman growing up in a feminist environment truly free? Is she a feminist because she believes in feminism, or is she a feminist because she has been socialised into becoming one?
When questioning personal autonomy, the buck has to stop somewhere, for logistical reasons, if nothing else.
B: To me feminists with the capital 'F' are those who identify themselves firstly as feminists, followed by human, woman/man, etc. They are militant and aggressive with respect to feminist agendas. Feminists with the lower case 'f' identify themselves as feminists only when necessary, and usually only when the opportunity arises for them to advocate feminist agendas constructively, etc. They don't think of themselves as feminists first, but rather as human beings, citizens, parents, sisters, etc. They recognize the value of feminist causes, but they acknowledge that there are/could also be more 'universal', important, values to uphold.
Personal autonomy and social 'oppression' are not mutually exclusive. One can be autonomous in one's intentions, actions, and inner thoughts and yet be socially 'oppressed' by the gender preconceptions of other people.
We can be socially 'oppressed' and influenced directly, as for say, younger people. I don't refer to the simplistic and reductionistic just-watch-TV-and-become-corrupted simplistic model of influence (in the moralistic vein of violence on TV), but rather in the subtle psycho-social effects of constantly seeing only particular representations of gender roles and types in the media.
We can also be indirectly 'oppressed', socially. For instance you are perfectly free to grow your hair to any length, or in any style, but the relationships which you can have, the social opportunities made available to you caused by the rigid gender presuppositions of other people may be fewer, perhaps especially in Singapore/Malaysia/Southeast Asia. People cast judgements on you, avoid associating (or avoid taking the initiative to associate) with you, or give you fewer/different treatment because you don't conform to their stereotypes, and make them feel uncomfortable, subversive.
Me: As I said, how do you disentangle the effects of 'oppression' from what the person would have done if not 'oppressed'? The disencumbered self is incoherent, since our very being is shaped by our experiences and socialization. Also, one could view feminism as an 'oppression' of its own, since it influences people's thoughts and societal expectations.
I do not believe in Libertarian Free Will, but on an operational level we must concede that Free Will exists, or the Universal Acid burns all the way through, and does not stop where we want it to.
Post ID: 6884669547076016301
"Football is a mistake. It combines the two worst elements of American life. Violence and committee meetings." - George F. Will
***
Video on Power Rangers and its alleged effect on violence in children (from 20/20):
"The kids are pounding each other again. But children have always done this sort of thing. But some people say it's worse today...
Why it's so popular isn't clear. From an adult perspective it's an astonishingly stupid show...
Most kids said they liked it *because* of the violence... And there's plenty of that. Roughly a third of each show.
And that's why teachers are upset. 'Kids are harder to control', they say. 'They can't concentrate because they're so obsessed with Power Rangers'. One survey shows classroom violence is up. Teachers complain the show teaches kids to solve problems by fighting...
*Mention of the case in Norway where a 5-year-old Norwegian girl was kicked to death by playmates*...
Most [kids we showed the show to] spent most of the time kicking...
The Canadian government is quicker to intervene... Of course, watching kids in Canadian playgrounds, you don't see all that much difference. Is censorship the solution? Kids are more violent today, but is that because of TV? Or lack of parenting?
No kids have been reported injured. Yes, these kids kicked more after watching Power Rangers but noticed they kicked the air - not each other. Or they kicked the wall. Maybe the kids know the show isn't real.
'No, it's fantasy' - Second grader
'Weren't you guys running around kicking each other at recess?'
'Well, we didn't really kick each other. We just faked it.' - Second grader
Of course, these are seven year olds. Younger kids are more likely to be confused about what's real. So I played a kid for the five-year-olds on my kid's soccer team.
These kids also acted the part. With weapons, yes. But they didn't hurt each other. Isn't this just the kind of playfighting kids have always done? And even five-year-olds could separate the show from reality...
He doesn't really believe his friend can morph. And few of the parents wanted censorship...
And many parents said it isn't the Power Rangers that threatens kids. It's the news.
'Very frightening. That gives them bad dreams' - Parent
'They know it's fake?'
'Yeah. They know it's fake' - Parent
'Are you really fighting?'
'It can't be real' - Kid
'Why not?'
'Cos it's magical' - Kid
'How do you know?'
'Cos then it'll be happening now. Yeah, and it'll be on the news, not on TV' - Kid
A later investigation in Norway showed that the death of the five-year-old was not realted to Power Rangers. The show is back on the air. If TV *is* the problem, why 'Power Rangers' and not, say, 'Ninja Turtles'? I'm not thrilled that my son watches this garbage, but my parents weren't thrilled by what *I* watched. *Road Runner clip* I was watching Road Runner cartoons and Sylvester and Tweety and Sylvester was getting the stuffing beat out of him, just as much as in Power Rangers.
'Children imitate real aggression more than they imitate animated aggression. I remember anvils being dropped on heads. Kids don't have access to anvils.' - Some Professor (?)
I guess we should be grateful for that.
But if it's realistic violence we're supposed to worry about, then what about professional wrestling? What about the even nastier stuff that goes on at video arcades? On TV the Power Rangers never draw blood.
But at the arcade kids mutilate each other. *Mortal Kombat reference*
Of course kids have always had an appetite for violence. Think about fairy tales. Hansel and Gretel cooked the witch. The wolf eats Little Red Riding Hood. Snow White is poisoned. Psychologists say such stories can help kids deal with their anger and feelings of powerlessness. What child doesn't feel better daydreaming about morphing into a superhero?
'I like how they teleport' - Kid
'Do you wish you could be them?'
'Yeah' - Kid
'Would give you more power?'
'Yeah' - Kid
'What would you do if you could do that?'
'I'll just be happy'
'Kids are tiny and this helps them feel powerful, that they can *morph* into something that will master their fear. Isn't some of this good for kids?'
'This doesn't mean that we have to accept a program where the characters morph onto to become excessively violent' - Some Professor (?)
Excessively violent? Maybe that's the point. *Lone Ranger clip* The Lone Ranger shot people in the hand. Now we have the X-Men, the Power Rangers. But does watching this make kids violent?
So much research has been done... kids who watch a lot of violent TV commit more violent acts and are more likely to commit crimes. But what does that prove? It's this sort of social science mush. It may be that kids who are disposed to be violent like watching violent TV. You don't know what came first.
'Do you have suggestions for parents? One of those kids was yours'
... Most psychologists suggest: watch with the kids. And then you can explain what's real, what's not. You can say: you know if you kick someone, it's gonna hurt them?
Funny how 30+ years of Super Sentai, Kamen Rider and Tokusatsu hasn't turned Jap kids into monsters.
***
Video on Power Rangers and its alleged effect on violence in children (from 20/20):
"The kids are pounding each other again. But children have always done this sort of thing. But some people say it's worse today...
Why it's so popular isn't clear. From an adult perspective it's an astonishingly stupid show...
Most kids said they liked it *because* of the violence... And there's plenty of that. Roughly a third of each show.
And that's why teachers are upset. 'Kids are harder to control', they say. 'They can't concentrate because they're so obsessed with Power Rangers'. One survey shows classroom violence is up. Teachers complain the show teaches kids to solve problems by fighting...
*Mention of the case in Norway where a 5-year-old Norwegian girl was kicked to death by playmates*...
Most [kids we showed the show to] spent most of the time kicking...
The Canadian government is quicker to intervene... Of course, watching kids in Canadian playgrounds, you don't see all that much difference. Is censorship the solution? Kids are more violent today, but is that because of TV? Or lack of parenting?
No kids have been reported injured. Yes, these kids kicked more after watching Power Rangers but noticed they kicked the air - not each other. Or they kicked the wall. Maybe the kids know the show isn't real.
'No, it's fantasy' - Second grader
'Weren't you guys running around kicking each other at recess?'
'Well, we didn't really kick each other. We just faked it.' - Second grader
Of course, these are seven year olds. Younger kids are more likely to be confused about what's real. So I played a kid for the five-year-olds on my kid's soccer team.
These kids also acted the part. With weapons, yes. But they didn't hurt each other. Isn't this just the kind of playfighting kids have always done? And even five-year-olds could separate the show from reality...
He doesn't really believe his friend can morph. And few of the parents wanted censorship...
And many parents said it isn't the Power Rangers that threatens kids. It's the news.
'Very frightening. That gives them bad dreams' - Parent
'They know it's fake?'
'Yeah. They know it's fake' - Parent
'Are you really fighting?'
'It can't be real' - Kid
'Why not?'
'Cos it's magical' - Kid
'How do you know?'
'Cos then it'll be happening now. Yeah, and it'll be on the news, not on TV' - Kid
A later investigation in Norway showed that the death of the five-year-old was not realted to Power Rangers. The show is back on the air. If TV *is* the problem, why 'Power Rangers' and not, say, 'Ninja Turtles'? I'm not thrilled that my son watches this garbage, but my parents weren't thrilled by what *I* watched. *Road Runner clip* I was watching Road Runner cartoons and Sylvester and Tweety and Sylvester was getting the stuffing beat out of him, just as much as in Power Rangers.
'Children imitate real aggression more than they imitate animated aggression. I remember anvils being dropped on heads. Kids don't have access to anvils.' - Some Professor (?)
I guess we should be grateful for that.
But if it's realistic violence we're supposed to worry about, then what about professional wrestling? What about the even nastier stuff that goes on at video arcades? On TV the Power Rangers never draw blood.
But at the arcade kids mutilate each other. *Mortal Kombat reference*
Of course kids have always had an appetite for violence. Think about fairy tales. Hansel and Gretel cooked the witch. The wolf eats Little Red Riding Hood. Snow White is poisoned. Psychologists say such stories can help kids deal with their anger and feelings of powerlessness. What child doesn't feel better daydreaming about morphing into a superhero?
'I like how they teleport' - Kid
'Do you wish you could be them?'
'Yeah' - Kid
'Would give you more power?'
'Yeah' - Kid
'What would you do if you could do that?'
'I'll just be happy'
'Kids are tiny and this helps them feel powerful, that they can *morph* into something that will master their fear. Isn't some of this good for kids?'
'This doesn't mean that we have to accept a program where the characters morph onto to become excessively violent' - Some Professor (?)
Excessively violent? Maybe that's the point. *Lone Ranger clip* The Lone Ranger shot people in the hand. Now we have the X-Men, the Power Rangers. But does watching this make kids violent?
So much research has been done... kids who watch a lot of violent TV commit more violent acts and are more likely to commit crimes. But what does that prove? It's this sort of social science mush. It may be that kids who are disposed to be violent like watching violent TV. You don't know what came first.
'Do you have suggestions for parents? One of those kids was yours'
... Most psychologists suggest: watch with the kids. And then you can explain what's real, what's not. You can say: you know if you kick someone, it's gonna hurt them?
Funny how 30+ years of Super Sentai, Kamen Rider and Tokusatsu hasn't turned Jap kids into monsters.
Post ID: 5349366622719124343
Friday, July 11, 2008
"A happy childhood has spoiled many a promising life." - Robertson Davies, "What's Bred in the Bone"
***
More US students seek Asian experience (The Straits Times, 3rd July 2008)
"For Filipino-American... spending five months at NUS last year helped him understand his heritage.
'As an Asian-American, connecting to my roots in Asia is very important to me. It helped me to understand my place in the world - something not many Americans understand, or even feel is necessary to understand'"
Even if he had gone 'back' to the Philippines, this talk of connecting to his roots would’ve been suspect, but in Singapore?!
Even if he had been hanging out with Filipino maids in Lucky Plaza his gushing would've been problematic but the more likely possibility is that he came here, went "Oh, I'm inthe Orient Asia" and soaked in the local culture with other exchange students.
Racio-geographical essentialism is bad enough, but anyhow racio-geographical essentialism is even worse.
***
More US students seek Asian experience (The Straits Times, 3rd July 2008)
"For Filipino-American... spending five months at NUS last year helped him understand his heritage.
'As an Asian-American, connecting to my roots in Asia is very important to me. It helped me to understand my place in the world - something not many Americans understand, or even feel is necessary to understand'"
Even if he had gone 'back' to the Philippines, this talk of connecting to his roots would’ve been suspect, but in Singapore?!
Even if he had been hanging out with Filipino maids in Lucky Plaza his gushing would've been problematic but the more likely possibility is that he came here, went "Oh, I'm in
Racio-geographical essentialism is bad enough, but anyhow racio-geographical essentialism is even worse.
Post ID: 769180258689540195
"The usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to either ignore them or to deny them without giving details.
I believe we've had enough of that in the United States, particularly with the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States is a great office and I feel that the people have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that office and who might obtain it.
I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or to an honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth."
- Nixon, Checkers speech
Well, he could always have launched a defamation suit. That would've worked.
I believe we've had enough of that in the United States, particularly with the present Administration in Washington, D.C. To me the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States is a great office and I feel that the people have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men who run for that office and who might obtain it.
I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or to an honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth."
- Nixon, Checkers speech
Well, he could always have launched a defamation suit. That would've worked.
Post ID: 3088823448947938501
Thursday, July 10, 2008
An email from Hum-Sup Guy:
Hello guys,
I write this email to encourage Gabriel, in his never say die spirit, to attempt Kinabalu again next summer. Shall we try Kinabalu 2009?
I have also attached the memorable photo for old time's sake.
[HSG]
A description from last year (apparently I didn't post a photo):
"When I woke up I had the most amazing pain. Even moving around slowly in bed was painful, not to mention turning about. Sitting up (and worse, standing up) was a struggle. Let's just say that if terminal cancer is like this, I am more convinced than ever that euthanasia is the way to go...
After a while, my condition improved from sheer agony to 'just' extreme pain. I was advised to stretch, but this sent fresh waves of torment through me, resulting in my manifesting 1 of my 2 reactions to unbearable pain - laughing (the other being crying). I laughed until my stomach hurt, which sent me into fresh throes. At this point the others came in and started exploiting me photographically."
No way, man.
Acidflask: that picture is like a cross between a reclining buddha, an arabesque and some obscure yoga position
Me: I’m glad you like it
the caption is “why I should never climb Mt Kinabalu again”
Acidflask: ah, i found the name i was looking for
hanumanasana
Me: I can invent new yoga positions
Acidflask: they're called asanas
you could invent the postkinabaluasana ;
or perhaps a name with a less mongrelized etymology ;)
Hello guys,
I write this email to encourage Gabriel, in his never say die spirit, to attempt Kinabalu again next summer. Shall we try Kinabalu 2009?
I have also attached the memorable photo for old time's sake.
[HSG]
A description from last year (apparently I didn't post a photo):
"When I woke up I had the most amazing pain. Even moving around slowly in bed was painful, not to mention turning about. Sitting up (and worse, standing up) was a struggle. Let's just say that if terminal cancer is like this, I am more convinced than ever that euthanasia is the way to go...
After a while, my condition improved from sheer agony to 'just' extreme pain. I was advised to stretch, but this sent fresh waves of torment through me, resulting in my manifesting 1 of my 2 reactions to unbearable pain - laughing (the other being crying). I laughed until my stomach hurt, which sent me into fresh throes. At this point the others came in and started exploiting me photographically."
No way, man.
Acidflask: that picture is like a cross between a reclining buddha, an arabesque and some obscure yoga position
Me: I’m glad you like it
the caption is “why I should never climb Mt Kinabalu again”
Acidflask: ah, i found the name i was looking for
hanumanasana
Me: I can invent new yoga positions
Acidflask: they're called asanas
you could invent the postkinabaluasana ;
or perhaps a name with a less mongrelized etymology ;)
Post ID: 3228568558929435871
Spam is getting more sophisticated:
"Dear friend
I have a project I want you to run with us. It involves exportation of 100,000 barrels of crude oil daily from Kirkuk, Iraq.
If you are interested, email me via: ***@live.com,***@bankpro.com
Mr. Yan."
Short and sweet - who can say no?!
"Dear friend
I have a project I want you to run with us. It involves exportation of 100,000 barrels of crude oil daily from Kirkuk, Iraq.
If you are interested, email me via: ***@live.com,***@bankpro.com
Mr. Yan."
Short and sweet - who can say no?!
Post ID: 4441625417604545380
"A lot of people like snow. I find it to be an unnecessary freezing of water." - Carl Reiner
***
Baltics trip
Day 3 - 18th May - Trakai, Lithuania (Part 2)
We went to Trakai, home to a reconstructed castle.
The town reminded us of Malaysia a lot, because it was smelly and there were a lot of potholes.
Map
Pussy on ledge
Attap hut with satellite dish on top
Boating facilities
Reeds
Boat
Fishing
Dock
Island Castle, home of the Dukes of Lithuania
People
Not quite warm enough to dip feet in
Some sort of fish hut
Wooden boats
Pony riding
Pillar
Crossing the bridge to the Castle
Stock and Courtyard
Ducal Palace
A 1 LT ticket (~S$0.62). To the toilet. I guess they must give you something to make you feel better.
Cage
Keep - and CCTV
Portcullis and drawbridge
Gates
Strange banner in the inner courtyard. Maybe they were having a kids' birthday party.
Somehow she managed to walk on cobblestones and climb staircases without breaking her heels or ankles, or injuring her pussy
The Duel of Knights. 2nd half of 19th century.
Unlabelled painting of a battle
Post office - in the keep!
Helmet of Cuirassier decorated with Sign of the Order. 1860.
There was an archery range, but I didn't want to disturb the sullen-looking men
Antlers mounted on wall. Too bad the heads weren't also preserved.
Stuffed animals
Lion
Pipes
***
Baltics trip
Day 3 - 18th May - Trakai, Lithuania (Part 2)
We went to Trakai, home to a reconstructed castle.
The town reminded us of Malaysia a lot, because it was smelly and there were a lot of potholes.
Map
Pussy on ledge
Attap hut with satellite dish on top
Boating facilities
Reeds
Boat
Fishing
Dock
Island Castle, home of the Dukes of Lithuania
People
Not quite warm enough to dip feet in
Some sort of fish hut
Wooden boats
Pony riding
Pillar
Crossing the bridge to the Castle
Stock and Courtyard
Ducal Palace
A 1 LT ticket (~S$0.62). To the toilet. I guess they must give you something to make you feel better.
Cage
Keep - and CCTV
Portcullis and drawbridge
Gates
Strange banner in the inner courtyard. Maybe they were having a kids' birthday party.
Somehow she managed to walk on cobblestones and climb staircases without breaking her heels or ankles, or injuring her pussy
The Duel of Knights. 2nd half of 19th century.
Unlabelled painting of a battle
Post office - in the keep!
Helmet of Cuirassier decorated with Sign of the Order. 1860.
There was an archery range, but I didn't want to disturb the sullen-looking men
Antlers mounted on wall. Too bad the heads weren't also preserved.
Stuffed animals
Lion
Pipes
Post ID: 4686382900631602077
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
