So I heard this report/ interview on NPR earlier today that struck me funny. The lead in, and the earlier teasers, kind of implied it would be a more dramatic, insightful story about these kids and the experiences they were missing thanks to the war. The host was talking with a mother in Baghdad about the necessity of keeping her kids inside for safety reasons. She said that she was scared to take them to the park, and then she said something very near to: "they do their homework... then they have their Playstation and like to watch satellite tv... they like to watch Tom & Jerry." Wow, um, that sounds rough. Isn't that essentially the same thing American kids choose to do after school?
Maybe we are exporting American style democracy to Iraq... from the bottom up. Changing the attitudes of adults is hard, but if we're willing to wait a generation maybe we can build a bridge by way of video games, junk food and television. We just have to keep the war going long enough to force these kids to stay inside until they're fully indoctrinated.
Anyway, I'm not trying to discount the point this story is trying (and failing) to make, or to diminish a very real and highly anxious situation for this (and many other) mothers in Baghdad. Clearly kids in Baghdad are kept inside for safety reasons and, unlike here in the U.S., they often don't have the choice of going outside to play if they want to. And the same story did make mention of the fact that these particular kids had seen someone murdered in the street, and that their father had been killed. But the net effect of this story, for me, was a feeling of irony... and I don't think that's what the writer/ producer/ host had in mind.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Anyone but Bush '08
This is a useful site for keeping up with all of the current presidential contenders. (Thanks Herby :)
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Coming of Age in Suburbia
Is personal purchasing power- the ability and opportunity to buy things without parental consent (or sometimes even awareness)- becoming a rite of passage for suburban adolescents? Or has that been the case for some time, and I'm only now catching on? I've seen lots of parenting articles decrying (or just trying to explain) the materialistic culture, and what that does to kids (and adults), and also some about the huge (and ever increasing) purchasing power of teens and preteens, but what of the ability to buy things itself?
I'm seeing more and more groups of 10/11/12 year old girls in the mall, shopping on their own, than I did just a few years ago. I saw four girls who couldn't have been more than 12 all buying stuff at Victoria's Secret two weeks ago. And one of them had a credit card. I'm not casting judgement, just curious if this is a new trend, or something I failed to notice before.
I obviously have a personal interest in the question. My daughter turns 12 next week and she has a cooler cell phone than me, an iPod nano, an iPac, a portable DVD player... At Christmas I got her a mall debit card and she and I did our shopping separately. She is one of those tween girls with "purchasing power" that are now seen shopping with friends at the mall. She frequently meets up with friends at a mall a few blocks from our house to wander and window shop and (sometimes) spend their allowance. And, in discussing potential places to move, I was surprised to find that her preference to live near places where she could "meet friends and buy stuff" was even higher than being near her school or a park. And I see the same trends among her friends. Being able to buy things, on their own, gives them a sense of autonomy that I don't see paralleled in any other activity.
I can appreciate the increased sense of autonomy, and they are really just mimicking the behavior of adults, but there's something about feeling "grown up" thanks to an ability to buy stuff that worries me. I don't remember that being an important activity for me as an adolescent, nor for any of my friends. And it seems like an unfortunate outgrowth of a culture obsessed with having more and more and more stuff. But hanging out playing video games wasn't de rigeur for my parents, as it was for my friends, and I'm sure they found that worrying too...
I'm seeing more and more groups of 10/11/12 year old girls in the mall, shopping on their own, than I did just a few years ago. I saw four girls who couldn't have been more than 12 all buying stuff at Victoria's Secret two weeks ago. And one of them had a credit card. I'm not casting judgement, just curious if this is a new trend, or something I failed to notice before.
I obviously have a personal interest in the question. My daughter turns 12 next week and she has a cooler cell phone than me, an iPod nano, an iPac, a portable DVD player... At Christmas I got her a mall debit card and she and I did our shopping separately. She is one of those tween girls with "purchasing power" that are now seen shopping with friends at the mall. She frequently meets up with friends at a mall a few blocks from our house to wander and window shop and (sometimes) spend their allowance. And, in discussing potential places to move, I was surprised to find that her preference to live near places where she could "meet friends and buy stuff" was even higher than being near her school or a park. And I see the same trends among her friends. Being able to buy things, on their own, gives them a sense of autonomy that I don't see paralleled in any other activity.
I can appreciate the increased sense of autonomy, and they are really just mimicking the behavior of adults, but there's something about feeling "grown up" thanks to an ability to buy stuff that worries me. I don't remember that being an important activity for me as an adolescent, nor for any of my friends. And it seems like an unfortunate outgrowth of a culture obsessed with having more and more and more stuff. But hanging out playing video games wasn't de rigeur for my parents, as it was for my friends, and I'm sure they found that worrying too...
Friday, March 9, 2007
Thursday, March 8, 2007
McCain and Giuliani and That Ill Feeling
David Frum at National Review in this article managed to sum up for me why my liking for John McCain has gone sour, and why (despite his- to me- more reasonable views and seemingly moderate stance) Rudy Giuliani has always rubbed me the wrong way. The bit with McCain on The Daily Show leaves me feeling especially queasy.
Al Gore Film
I saw An Inconvenient Truth on Monday, and I liked it. The science was well presented, in an accessible, populist kind of way. Plausible, convincing and, quite frankly, scary. The film is about the real threat of global warming, and about Gore's personal crusade to get the message to as many people as he can. There's a good amount of pre-campaigning in the film as well, but that's to be expected.
Much of the criticism I'm seeing online (besides the talk about Al Gore's house/ energy consumption, which I'm largely ignoring for now) has been about the lack of solutions presented. That's a fair criticism, and I had a similar reaction, but, should he choose to run for president again, it behooves Gore to save those kind of details for the campaign trail (and, ideally, his presidency). It makes more sense to get people talking and thinking about the global warming issue and save the nuts and bolts of fixing the problem for a time when it will have the most political impact and potential to create real change.
When (and if) Gore does begin suggesting solutions for Americans to reduce their individual CO2 impact he ought to play up the WWII parallels. Victory gardens, metal rationing, reduced consumption in general. It's the kind of self-sacrifice message that politicians now tend to avoid at all costs, but it's really the only honest message, and the only one that has a possibility for fomenting real change. It makes far more sense to put the onus for change on regular people rather than blaming the industries that, after all, exist only to feed the ever increasing consumption of individuals. Assuming he could convey this message effectively, Gore could win some votes among young people and perhaps elevate the level of discourse just by giving people the benefit of the doubt. The current assumption seems to be that regular people are too lazy, cynical, uncaring or unwilling to take responsibility for their own environmental impact and change their behavior accordingly.
In the film Gore quotes Churchill, and uses America's founding, the emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage, desegregation of schools and various other examples from our history to illustrate the ability of the American people to rise to a moral challenge and change our behavior/ attitudes for the better. I think he would do well to continue in that vein, and take it even further. He needs to not only inspire people with examples from the past, but to connect them effectively with our behaviors and potential in the present.
Much of the criticism I'm seeing online (besides the talk about Al Gore's house/ energy consumption, which I'm largely ignoring for now) has been about the lack of solutions presented. That's a fair criticism, and I had a similar reaction, but, should he choose to run for president again, it behooves Gore to save those kind of details for the campaign trail (and, ideally, his presidency). It makes more sense to get people talking and thinking about the global warming issue and save the nuts and bolts of fixing the problem for a time when it will have the most political impact and potential to create real change.
When (and if) Gore does begin suggesting solutions for Americans to reduce their individual CO2 impact he ought to play up the WWII parallels. Victory gardens, metal rationing, reduced consumption in general. It's the kind of self-sacrifice message that politicians now tend to avoid at all costs, but it's really the only honest message, and the only one that has a possibility for fomenting real change. It makes far more sense to put the onus for change on regular people rather than blaming the industries that, after all, exist only to feed the ever increasing consumption of individuals. Assuming he could convey this message effectively, Gore could win some votes among young people and perhaps elevate the level of discourse just by giving people the benefit of the doubt. The current assumption seems to be that regular people are too lazy, cynical, uncaring or unwilling to take responsibility for their own environmental impact and change their behavior accordingly.
In the film Gore quotes Churchill, and uses America's founding, the emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage, desegregation of schools and various other examples from our history to illustrate the ability of the American people to rise to a moral challenge and change our behavior/ attitudes for the better. I think he would do well to continue in that vein, and take it even further. He needs to not only inspire people with examples from the past, but to connect them effectively with our behaviors and potential in the present.
"Green" Oscars and Carbon Offsets
In what I (and apparently a few others) can only assume is an attempt to salve the left-leaning consciousness of many of the presenters at this years Oscars (as well as an attempt to save them from having to pay hefty taxes on gift "bags" full of swanky stuff that are often worth upwards of $100G) the Academy this year decided to give out carbon offset certificates. The certificates are worth 100,000 pounds of CO2 emissions, which is supposed to be a reasonable average for one year of a celebrity's life... with all the flying and heating the swimming pool in the enormous Beverly Hills mansion. As a comparison, the average American is said to have a carbon footprint of anywhere from 7 to 19 tons (or 14,000 to 38,000 pounds). You can calculate your own carbon footprint at multiple sites online like this one and this one. And you can read an excellent explanation of the concept here (gotta love Wikipedia.)
I don't disagree, in principle, with the idea of purchasing carbon offsets, but I'm not familiar enough with the economics and logistics of energy markets to speak with any authority. I do wonder about the logical conundrum of essentially paying someone else to use less energy so that one can use more. It doesn't really fit with the goal of reducing consumption overall. Anyway, I'd hate to see this become just another way that wealthy individuals can get away with behaving irresponsibly or hypocritically while the burden of change falls on regular people and the bulk of the fallout falls on the poorest. The comment here about Catholics purchasing dispensations strikes me as especially funny. I guess what irks me the most is the idea of being able to buy oneself a clear conscience, and the assumption (which may be unfair) that having the money to do so frees one from the obligation to behave more responsibly.
Then again, stars do have to fly more than regular people and there's not much they can personally do about the environmental impact of flying, and at least this offers some way for them to offset that. I guess I'm just worried about the trend-setting possibilities. I'd rather see celebrities reducing their carbon footprint through responsible choices, because that sets a good example for the public at large, but that's probably an unfair burden to place on a bunch of actors.
Another thought, though... the idea of carbon offsets creates a whole new commodity. One that the poor have more of, thanks to the necessity of living more simply. If the government sets a standard for individual carbon footprints, with a corresponding obligation (and not just suggestion) to stay within those limits, that could mean more money flowing downhill from the heaviest consumers to the lightest- in the form of purchased carbon offsets. That could make for an interesting redistribution of wealth, and possibly a different kind of cultural divide, should the environmental problems escalate beyond a certain degree. I'm suddenly imagining celebrities and corporations underwriting entire eco-villages to offset their carbon impact. Probably more fantasy than reality... but an interesting possibility nonetheless.
I don't disagree, in principle, with the idea of purchasing carbon offsets, but I'm not familiar enough with the economics and logistics of energy markets to speak with any authority. I do wonder about the logical conundrum of essentially paying someone else to use less energy so that one can use more. It doesn't really fit with the goal of reducing consumption overall. Anyway, I'd hate to see this become just another way that wealthy individuals can get away with behaving irresponsibly or hypocritically while the burden of change falls on regular people and the bulk of the fallout falls on the poorest. The comment here about Catholics purchasing dispensations strikes me as especially funny. I guess what irks me the most is the idea of being able to buy oneself a clear conscience, and the assumption (which may be unfair) that having the money to do so frees one from the obligation to behave more responsibly.
Then again, stars do have to fly more than regular people and there's not much they can personally do about the environmental impact of flying, and at least this offers some way for them to offset that. I guess I'm just worried about the trend-setting possibilities. I'd rather see celebrities reducing their carbon footprint through responsible choices, because that sets a good example for the public at large, but that's probably an unfair burden to place on a bunch of actors.
Another thought, though... the idea of carbon offsets creates a whole new commodity. One that the poor have more of, thanks to the necessity of living more simply. If the government sets a standard for individual carbon footprints, with a corresponding obligation (and not just suggestion) to stay within those limits, that could mean more money flowing downhill from the heaviest consumers to the lightest- in the form of purchased carbon offsets. That could make for an interesting redistribution of wealth, and possibly a different kind of cultural divide, should the environmental problems escalate beyond a certain degree. I'm suddenly imagining celebrities and corporations underwriting entire eco-villages to offset their carbon impact. Probably more fantasy than reality... but an interesting possibility nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)