Take Your Kids to Work!
(But you won't do any work when you get there)
I am having a great time today at Take Your Son or Daughter to Work Day. But I'm not doing much else.
A large, chiefly aquatic American herbivorous blog having thick, dark, almost hairless skin, short legs with four toes, and a broad, wide-mouthed muzzle.
A Cry of Stone is the latest book in the "Children of the Last Days" series. It does something that I would have thought almost impossible before I read it: It presents true poverty of spirit as something desirable and attractive. O'Brien gives an account of the entire life of a poor (fictional) native woman from northern Canada. Her name is Rose, and she has known great deprivation from her earliest memory. The novel shows how God uses Rose in so many ways. She is constantly aware of her weaknesses and smallness, but she just as constantly offers her entire self to the Lord. It is an amazing book.
Of course, the report was completely devoid of what I would consider substantive discussion. It did not talk about the effectiveness of programs at curbing teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease. I am not surprised that it did not give a full accounting of the questions that burn at the heart of the controversy, for these questions are deep and profound, and can not be reasonably presented in a three-minute report. These questions regard the nature and meaning of sexuality. And we can not seriously discuss the nature and meaning of sex without talking about the nature and meaning of being human. It is frustrating, though, that there was not even the slightest hint of recognition that these issues are at the core.
The entire report was about the political action of the "Religious Right" and how it mobilized to counter many public school sex education programs. The sense throughout, although you could tell the reporter was attempting to appear objective, was that conservatives were "other". It was painfully obvious that the reporter was not speaking of something he knew, or to which he could begin to relate.
Oops, I must go. See you later.
This book had been sitting on my shelf for some time. I started it once several years ago, got distracted from it and never went back. Then, around the turn of the new year, a radio station was talking about people who he died in 2003. Neil Postman's name was mentioned, so I found and dusted off my copy and dove in.
This was an incredibly insightful book. I, like many others, have long felt that television's influence on society was, on the whole, extremely destructive. But I had not been able to explain why so much on TV is so bad. Why did TV draw such consistently horrible content? Why were examples of intellectually challenging and coherent programming so incredibly rare?
My first tendency has been to simply blame the people in charge of television production. If the people creating the shows are focused on the trivial and the banal then we would expect their show to reflect that. But this never really explained why so many of the people producing TV shows are unable to deal with any kind of serious intellectual content.
Postman makes the argument that it is the medium of television itself that drives such vapid content. Television, by it's very nature, demands at least two things:
In a passage that presciently described the Clinton presidency:
If on television, credibility replaces reality as the decisive test of truth-telling, political leaders need not trouble themselves very much with reality provided that their performances consistently generate a sense of verisimilitude. I suspect, for example, that the dishonor that now shrouds Richard Nixon results not from the fact the he lied but that on television he looked like a liar. Which, if true, should bring no comfort to anyone, not even veteran Nixon-haters. For the alternative possibilities are that one may look like a liar but be telling the truth; or even worse, look like a truth-teller but in fact be lying. [pg. 102.]
Work is great. My job
feeds my family. Reading
procedures is dull.
The absence of all inward unrest is by no means invariably a good. It is a good on the condition only that it comes from a harmony with objective good and expresses a response to Truth. Sated contentment or a peace of mind due to thoughtlessness or illusion, is not a good but an evil - no matter how pleasant it may subjectively feel. [pg. 35]
The nagging unrest of him who doubts and of him who writhes in the fetters of sin, the most deeply painful experience of unrest will dissolve as soon as he achieves an unequivocal surrender to God: peace will come to man when he lets himself fall into the arms of God... [pg. 43]