A Quiz, question 2

I know you will know the answer to this one, Qahal -- Eight gold stars at stake (extra because of my extra-long babble before I pose the question).

Here is an article arguing that parents should take their kids to more adult-themed movies (not movies found in the "adult" section; luckily even the author has some boundaries). Why? So they can discover the world of adulthood.

To frame the author's state of mind:

The same Christmas Day, my son, who is in sixth grade, went to see “Charlie Wilson’s War” with his mother and other family members. When he came back he had some hard questions, but they had nothing to do with naked congressmen in hot tubs or cocaine or extramarital dalliances, all of which feature prominently in that movie. “Why did the Russians invade Afghanistan in the first place?” he wanted to know.

Do you know why your son had no questions about nudity, sex, and drugs but was curious about this place called Afganistan? Because he has learned plenty about sex and drugs in all the R-rated movies you have taken him to. Old hat, it's all been normalized in his world. But I digress . . . Back to our author:

It’s appealing in part because it’s a grown-up movie of a kind that used to be more common. It’s brisk, funny and frank about sex and politics, demonstrating the ease and worldliness that are among the most fascinating and mysterious features of adulthood. More so, I suspect, than the nudity, smoking and swearing that are also part of Charlie Wilson’s world.

There it is -- "the ease and worldliness that are among the most fascinating and mysterious features of adulthood" -- that is what you are teaching your kid through these movies. Move over Cosby, we've got a new parenting coach in town.

But now for the quiz question. Our author then says:

Death and sexuality figure in the story, but those themes are handled with such wit and delicacy that “Persepolis” is more likely to inspire interesting conversations than awkward questions or uncomfortable feelings. The same might not be true of “Juno,” the story of a 16-year-old girl’s unintended pregnancy and her entanglement with the couple who want to adopt her baby.

Like other parents I’ve spoken to about it, I wish “Juno” were just a bit less lighthearted about teenage pregnancy, the real social and psychological consequences of which are never quite acknowledged. But the movie’s spirit is sweet and smart and youthful, and the relationships it depicts feel very tender and real. If it provokes you to have that long-dreaded talk with your son or daughter, so much the better. You might have needed to anyway.

Now I have not seen any of the movies he is talking about, so I am not making any judgments about the actual movies, but I do know that Juno is one of the recent mainstream films that is getting huge praise from those pesky pro-lifers and others who care a whole lot about kids. This is the one movie he singled out as inappropriate for kids (he was less harsh on the other movies mentioned; he didn't actually say that kids should not see There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men, he just wouldn't advise parents on this decision). Why is it that a man who cheers on the early adultification of children through movies would make sure to smear one adult movie that many of his probable detractors have found to be a good story about life?

Is it:
a) Christians and the like are stupid and have no understanding of what makes a good story
b) When you write for the Times, you are always working the agenda
c) Other (please explain)

Hint: he ends his article by saying: "Some of these films may be too hot or too rough, but for that reason they may also be just right."

Twinkies the new terrorists, statistics say

According to this article, obesity is more dangerous than terrorism. But terrorism and the sexy diseases are getting all the press:

Like terrorism, some passing health threats get major government attention and media coverage, while heart and lung disease, diabetes and cancer account for 60 percent of the world's deaths, the meeting was told.

Why bother fighting terrorism (or crime or anything else) because 100% of us are eventually going to die?

iRobots Take Over, Statistics Say

Great stuff here, unless you worship Steve Jobs. According to Jobs:

the fact is that people don’t read anymore. Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year.

According to the article:

Last year, a survey for the Associated Press found that a much smaller number — 27 percent — had not read a book lately, which means nearly three-in-four have read a book. Steve Jobs may be many things – maestro, visionary, demi-god – but he apparently isn’t a careful reader of certain market reports.

The more compelling statistic was rarely mentioned in news accounts of the A.P. story: the survey found that another 27 percent of Americans had read 15 or more books a year. That report documents a national celebration.

And as one of the comments aptly points out: "Forty percent of Americans do not vote. Does that mean that we have no elections in the United States?"

Ah, statistics, is there nothing they can't prove?

Its Time For a Lawyer's Strike (and I'm sure many agree)

Here is what Tim Long, writer for the Simpsons, did during the writer's strike:

I began the strike with lofty plans to write a novel, which soon turned into a novella, which then turned into 13 solid weeks of playing "Guitar Hero III" in my underpants.

If that comes along with unionizing, sign me up.

A Quiz

Three gold stars if you can figure out why this is discriminatory:

A prominent civil rights leader has told the Democratic National Committee that refusing to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan would disenfranchise both states' minority communities.

. . .

Refusing to seat the states' delegations could remind voters of the "sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries," [NAACP Chairman Julian Bond] said.

I could see how this would be a problem if they only ignored the black votes, but they are ignoring the white votes in Michigan and Florida as well. Perhaps my subconscious racism is rearing its ugly head, but I don't see the issue here.

Why I Love the United States Postal Service

I get a kick out of this website every time I use it. It is a site specifically for looking up zip codes, yet it has a box for the to enter the zip code. At least it is not a required field.

Modernopoly

Why, oh why must we do things like this?

Man Without a Party

James Taranto has been doing an amusing series of "Man Without a Party" articles, where he points out the fact that when the media reports the scandals of republican politician his or her party affiliation is immediately designated, whereas when the media reports the scandals of democrat politician the party affiliation is conveniently omitted. The lastest installment in this series concerned Bill Clinton (last item here). When I read this yesterday I was willing to give the NY Times a pass; Bill Clinton is so well known that it is not necessary to designate him a democrat. But then I read this article today, in which the first sentence identified Richard Nixon as "the GOP president who resigned in disgrace."

I guess you don't get a pass for being well-known or a former president; you only get a pass for for being a democrat.