Clean Shows

Whether we care to admit it or not, TV shows are a big part of our lives and they also influence our childhood.  Some of the right and wrong I learned I saw on TV.  Peter Brady secretly recorded his brothers and sisters and then used those conversations against them.  Peter, and the children like me who viewed that episode, learned that this is wrong because we saw what happened to Peter Brady.  Obviously some of the folks at News Limited never saw that episode.  The other six castaways wrongly accused Gilligan of stealing when it was a chimpanzee all along.  We learned that it is not good to accuse people of something without the facts.  We learned this because we felt sorry for poor Gilligan when even Mary Ann turned against him.  We did not need to be preached too but a lot of those shows did influence our morals and our attitudes.

Shows back then which children watched were pretty clean cut, even shows that teenagers watched.  They were unrealistic in many ways, but wholesome.  I sometimes wonder whether parents let their kids watch Get Smart, Gilligan’s Island and I Dream of Jeannie because they wished for a more wholesome world.  We didn’t know any better but we enjoyed the shows.

I wonder whether there are any good wholesome shows for kids, say aged 7-15 to watch today.  I tend to think not.   

Australia has a soap supposedly for teenagers.  It is fast moving which is good.  In that regard it is a far cry from Ryan’s Hope in which a woman fell off a building and it took three half hour episodes for her to splatter on the pavement below.  Home and Away is fast moving.  But wholesome?  My wife watches the show and so far as I can tell, it has had a stalker, a bomber, a couple of garden variety psychopaths, kidnapping, gangsters, drug pushers, unethical doctors and lawyers, and of course, no show would be complete for teenagers without seriously inappropriate behaviour between teachers and students. 

People will say wholesome shows are unrealistic and I agree.  But is that necessarily bad?  Let’s take The Brady Bunch which back in the day was watched by teenagers thanks to greg and Marcia.  What would the show be like today?

Well, Mike Brady and Alice would be having an affair right under Carol’s nose.  Meanwhile Greg and Marcia would also be conducting their own horizontally based activities.  They weren’t blood relatives after all.  In the season finale, Carol Brady finds out about the affair and is broken hearted, but also plans revenge.  In the next season, Carol talks to Sam the Butcher who at first disbelieves Carol’s contention that his Alice is having it on with Mike Brady.  Meanwhile Carol finds out about Greg and Marcia and in exchange for her silence, convinces both Greg and Marcia to spy on Mike and Alice to find evidence.  About three episodes later, they find the evidence and Carol finally convinces Sam.  Sam is outraged.  He just so happens to have connections to the mob and Carol and Sam decide to put the hit out on Mike.  Carol wants to spare Alice because after all, someone has to clean the house.

Meanwhile Tiger the dog bites Cindy’s best friend and the friend’s parents sue the Brady’s so Mike is busy with that.  It looks like Tiger will have to be put down.  Bobby senses something is wrong and starts to have trouble at school.  He gets into a few fights and gets suspended.  Meanwhile the mob guy starts stalking Mike Brady.

Jan falls pregnant and just before the season finale, is torn between keeping the baby or having a secret abortion.  She wants to confide in Peter, but Peter is too stoned to care and has fallen in with a gang.  This season ends just as the hit man is about to nail Mike Brady.  Carol and Sam the butcher, bonding through their common pain, start their own little romance and Alice begins to suspect Sam knows.  She also finds out about Greg and Marcia but the two threaten Alice with telling Carol about Mike and her.  Alice doesn’t realize Carol already knows so keeps quiet while she begins having a nervous breakdown.  Good thing Peter is around because he can get Alice some pills which she really needs.

That is pretty much how the modern Brady Bunch show would go.  I don’t want to be a prude, but I kind of like the original better.  When I grew up I learned some of the behind-the-scenes things that children shouldn’t really care about, but the truth is, I miss the wholesome shows for children.  I probably wouldn’t watch them myself, but I would want my children to have something decent to watch.  I even kind of miss The Waltons and I never thought I would feel that way about that show.  I used to argue with my sister about that show all the time because she would want to watch it while I wanted to watch sumo wrestling.  I even went so far as to calculate the number of TV hours per year she logged up by watching all episodes of The Waltons against all those I logged watching the Sumo matches.  It turned out the math was in her favor so she got to watch The Waltons.  I forgave mathematics since it was my idea to employ them, and I wager not too many of you have had that argument with your siblings. 

But I digress.  My point is children deserve non cartoons that do not have all this realism.  Let kids imagine, and dream, and pretend.  Realism will intrude fast enough on their lives.

Those Insulting Cartoons

In order for us to deal with the question of freedom of speech set against racial vilification, and set against the background of extremist attacks, we must first understand the problem.  Understand the problem I hear you ask?  What problem?  Somebody drew cartoons which a few idiots with guns thought was insulting and the result was a massacre.  The problem lies with the extremist idiots, not with us or those who drew the cartoons.  People should be allowed to draw and say what they like.  Perhaps so, but perhaps we should pause first before rushing to this judgment.  My instinctive reaction is exactly this.  What’s wrong with cartoons and what is wrong with satire?  After all, our society has put up with South Park for years now and we’re still fine aren’t we?  Satire has the ability to be really funny, and to be really not funny at the same time.

In 1729 Jonathan Swift published A Modest Proposal which was a satirical essay designed to illustrate the plight of the Irish poor.  But because it was satire, many who read it mistook his proposal to sell poor children to the rich as food, not to mention their skins making great lampshades, for the author’s actual beliefs.  He was nearly killed as a result. 

In the 1960’s people took offense at the great Satirist Tom Lehrer when he questioned the wisdom of trusting West Germany to have control over nuclear missiles.  When he sang “Once all the Germans were warlike and mean, but that couldn’t happen again.  We taught them a lesson in 1918 and they’ve hardly bothered us since then” many laughed, but many did not.  Was Lehrer disrespecting all those who gave their lives in World War II, or was he merely using satire to make the point that politicians have short memories? 

Thus, that a group of people are deeply offended by satire should not surprise us.  That is what satire does.  I remember once in the late 70’s watching some late night Christian broadcast about a horrible movie that was soon to be released.  It made fun of Jesus and Christians.  As they described this movie, I was outraged.  How could anyone countenance such filth?  The broadcast encouraged us to write to congress asking that the movie be banned.  Because I missed the beginning of the broadcast I did not know what the movie was, but I was outraged that anyone could stoop so low as to deliberately insult my religion.  It turned out the movie was Life of Bryan, one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen.  Yes the movie makes fun of both Christianity and Judaism, but far from being offended, I loved it.  I found the satire funny.  Others did not.  I learned from this experience that one person’s insult is another person’s comedy.

With this in mind let me try to make this whole thing something we in Australia and America can understand.  Many Jesus movies have been made and many cartoons and movies, such as Life of Bryan have lampooned aspects of Christianity so many of us don’t know what the fuss is all about.  So let’s pretend someone made a cartoon of something that would deeply offend us.  Suppose, for example, somebody made a cartoon showing Australian or American soldiers emaciated in a Japanese prisoner of war camp.  The Japanese horribly mistreated World War II prisoners and many died from starvation and disease.  Suppose this cartoon showed these emaciated war heroes promoting the “Japanese Diet.”  Let us imagine one emaciated prisoner of war with a cartoon bubble over his head saying, “Before I came here I was overweight and couldn’t do the things I used to do.  But now, thanks to the Japanese Diet I have shed 20 kilos (44 pounds) in just five weeks.”  And just to add salt into the wound, suppose the cartoon depicted these prisoners smiling and happy.

We would find that cartoon tremendously insulting and we would justifiably be outraged.  I know I would be.  This sort of reaction is more or less what many Muslims feel about some of the cartoons which have been published.

If someone did publish the Japanese Diet cartoon, would we want it banned?  Probably.  In Australia, the RSL would go ballistic and so they should.  In America the outrage would be boundless. 

Or suppose someone published a cartoon making fun of Holocaust victims.  Let’s say the caption showed concentration camp victims saying “We know we can’t prove this really happened, but pay us compensation anyway.”  I would be livid with rage at such a cartoon personally and my outrage would be matched and exceeded by millions. 

Let us now ask the question again.  Should freedom of speech extend to the horrible examples I mentioned above?  Should the Japanese Diet and Holocaust cartoons be allowed in our society?

I think for many, this question is now much more difficult to answer.  My personal view is this.  I think those cartoons, as terrible as they are, should be allowed.  I think this for two main reasons.  First, if we draw the line at something like this, we are actually saying “we will allow material that is offensive to group A to be published, but not material offensive to group B.”  In other words, our laws would actually discriminate in favour of one group over another.  The second reason is that people would be so outraged against such cartoons, that market forces would soon put the publishers out of business.  If they did not, then the cartoons would signal a problem.  For example, if the holocaust cartoon proved very popular and increased sales of a publication, then we would know we have a problem on our hands that should be dealt with in some way.  Otherwise, the publication would either go out of business, or take a big time reputation hit and think twice before doing something like that again.

But what about online publishing?  Say somebody just posts the cartoons on a web site?  I don’t think there is much we can do about this and the people who like such nonsense will enjoy it but the majority would not.  Now let’s say the hypothetical Holocaust cartoon is accompanied with statements that Jews should be persecuted or attacked.  This is where our societies have drawn the line as this endangers others.  This sort of thing has never been allowed.

Satire generally makes fun of something and stops there.  This should be permitted.  Something which encourages people to take violent action against a group should not be tolerated.

Some years ago an artist whose name I cannot remember produced a work showing a crucifix submerged in his own urine.  As a Christian I found this extremely offensive.  But you know what?  I don’t remember the idiot’s name who created the work in the name of art.  He was a flash in the pan and society basically shrugged its shoulders and moved on.  So has the Church and this art work, if you can call it that, is largely forgotten.  In short, no big deal in the end.  If Jesus was offended by the work, he is King of kings and Lord of lords and so is powerful enough to extract vengeance if he wishes.  No need for me to do so on his behalf.

And I think this principle is a very useful one to remember if you follow a religion.  God is all powerful.  If he is really mad about something, he is big enough and strong enough to take care of it himself.  And really, if he did so, the whole world would take notice.  If God sent an angel, blazing with power from the heavens for all to see, to the artist in question and thundered, “You must die because of your supposed art.  How dare you depict Jesus in urine.” And boom, the artist is now dead, God’s point has been made for all to see and his feelings are manifest and unambiguous.  Thus if God cannot be bothered doing this, then why should we?

Not all satire is good.  Some is just downright horrible from an aesthetic or artistic point of view.  But then, these judgments are personal judgments.  Life of Bryan was horrible to some, hilarious to myself and others.  I do not think we should dismiss how insulting some cartoons are to Islam.  Understand these cartoons are really offensive to many Muslims.  If you are going to satire, be mindful that such satire will deeply offend some.  But at the same time, we live in a society which allows a great degree of latitude when it comes to such things.  The truth is, had the cartoons in question been ignored by Muslim extremists, most of us would not have known they existed and they would have faded into the trash bin of history.  No harm done.  And that is the way these things usually end.  By making a big deal of this, Islam hurts itself by making people more ready and willing to insult Islam.  Such actions have turned these cartoons from so-so satire into a purposeful deliberate attempt to insult as well as a rallying cry against terror.  These cartoons are far more prominent now than they would ever have been had extremists simply left things alone.  And this, in the end, is why satire should be allowed.  It’s really no big deal even though it can sometimes be an extremely powerful way to illustrate a point of view.

Does the iClay Do More Harm Than Good?

Babylon – Ever since the introduction of clay tablets, researchers and parents have been divided with respect to how these affect children. “Once my child gets that stylus in his hand, it’s hard to pry it loose” says NeboShazzar, a concerned parent.
“Before the introduction of the clay tablet,” says Dr. Belhazanshashbad head of the Sumerian College of Health Sciences, “teenagers routinely memorized whole epics. Now we’re lucky to find a teenager who can remember literature of 200,000 or 250,000 words. This is truly deplorable.”
Clay tablets mean people no longer have to memorize information. A permanent record can be kept. Researchers fear this will cause senility in children since they no longer have to worry about transmitting and receiving large amounts of knowledge orally. Researchers at the Hammurabi Institute of Astrology report a 35% reduction in verbal communication skills in children exposed to the iClay from an early age.
Others, however, say that the iClay represents a change in communication which in turn means that old skills are no longer required, but that new skills are emerging. Stephanos Iobsarakis, the Ionian businessman responsible for introducing the iClay to the city, counters the “doom and gloomers” as he calls them, by saying that children are exposed to much more knowledge than they were before. “Before the iClay,” says Iobsarakis, “children could only learn from sages and teachers who taught them directly. The poor and unlucky had no access to such persons. Thanks to the iClay, they no longer need such access. Sages and teachers can write down their knowledge and thereby allow thousands to benefit from it.”
There can be no doubt that the iClay has sparked a revolution in learning. Universities throughout Mesopotamia report that more and more students are bringing their tablets to class and jotting down what the professors tell them.
Clay tablets have many more advantages over potsherds, which up until now were the writing tools of choice. Potsherds are simply too small to convey much information, and most of the information contained in potsherds is fragmentary at best, says Iobsarakis. Clay tablets, on the other hand, can convey much more information and the size of the tablet makes that information much more readable.
Professor Elshazzar-Marduch, a lecturer at Babylon University enthusiastically supports Iobsarakis. “Fears that clay tablets will harm children are groundless,” says the professor. “The only danger the clay tablet poses is an older brother smashing the head of an annoying younger brother with it. And that is a parental concern. The clay tablet is the greatest innovation since sliced Ishtar cakes.”
Regardless of ones opinion about the merits or lack thereof of clay tablets, they are here to stay. Clay tablets have gained such market share that last week, the Potters Guild rioted amid rumors that Iobsarakis was about to outsource manufacturing to Canaan. More research is needed to determine the long term effects of clay tablets. For now, though, the iClay and its creator are on to something and with money flowing in, the iClay will only grow in popularity.

Technology May Cost Elf Jobs

Originally written in 2014

From the Wall Street Journal

Washington D.C. – Yesterday Federal District Judge Francis Talbot imposed an emergency injunction forbidding Santa Claus or anyone affiliated with him from distributing presents to children.  The injunction was granted on behalf of a consortium of large corporations including Microsoft, Sony, Apple, Mattel and Samsung.  In 2012 this consortium launched legal action against Santa Claus and the North Pole government claiming massive violations of patents and copyrights owned by these corporations.  In the intervening years, other corporations joined the lawsuit against Santa so that now, over 25 large corporations are involved. 

Jennifer Chang, a lead attorney for the consortium said yesterday:  “We are pleased that Judge Talbot has seen fit to uphold our point of view.  We stress, however, that we do not oppose the distribution of gifts to children in principle.  We believe this is noble and highly beneficial to everyone.  What we do oppose is the fact that Santa’s Elves continuously manufacture our products without our permission.  Distribution of these products on Christmas Eve has caused large monetary damage to the companies represented in this lawsuit.”

Apple has estimated it loses over $3 billion a year in revenue due to North Pole manufactured iPhones and iPads alone.  In a statement released to the press last week Apple affirmed its right to distribute its own goods.  The statement points out that “A lot of time and money goes into R&D and we funded the costs for all of that.  Therefore we deserve to profit from all our hard work.”

This lawsuit has been further complicated by speculation and rumours over Amazon’s unwillingness to join the consortium against Santa Claus.  Last month noted physicist Stephen Hawking pointed out that the ever increasing population means that Santa’s Reindeer must distribute presents to an ever increasing number of children in the same roughly 31 hour period of Christmas Eve when you take the earth’s rotation into account.  “Think about this,” said Mr. Hawking.  “When you consider Santa must attend all those shopping malls and deal with all those children’s requests for presents, it’s a wonder he has any time left for anything else.  Given this and the workload increase on the poor reindeer, it makes sense that Santa might consider online ordering and outsourcing some of the presents distribution.  A company like Amazon would be ideal for Santa.”  This comment might have passed merely as the whimsical musings of a brilliant mind were it not for Jeff Besos’ – founder of Amazon.com - unexpected unwillingness to respond in any way to these comments.  This silence on his part gave momentum to the idea that Santa is indeed exploring an arrangement with the world’s largest internet retailing company.  It is believed that Amazon’s world-wide distribution and warehousing capabilities could nicely complement the one sleigh Santa traditionally employs.

Judge Talbot’s injunction is unlikely to have any effect on Christmas Eve since Santa Claus has made it very clear in the past he does not recognize the jurisdiction of any US court in this matter.  But Hawking’s comments and Jeff Besos’ silence brings up an interesting question.  Noted Economist Dennis MacKenzie speculated that while technology may assist Santa, it may also hurt Santa.

“If you look at it from the angle of reindeer workload, a partnership with Amazon makes perfect sense, assuming Santa can negotiate the fact he does not employ money in any way in his operation.  But you have to look at it from other angles as well.  What effect, for example, will the growth of 3D printing have on the whole North Pole operation?  Traditionally, elves have toiled away in workshops manually creating toys and other items children desire.  While the elves have obviously kept up with the times as is demonstrated by their ability to manufacture their own iPads and PlayStations, we also know that manufacturing based economies have taken a massive hit of late due to the fact that technology renders many manufacturing jobs redundant.  In short, will Santa soon have unemployed elves on his hands?”

More children means more presents.  If Santa continues to employ a highly manual labor intensive mode of operation as he has done in the past, either he needs a corresponding increase in the elf population, or he needs to radically increase technologically based manufacturing methods and this inevitably leads to the loss of jobs.  “3D printing and robots will and have dramatically changed the landscape of manufacturing,” said McKenzie.  “At least it has for us here in the USA.  It is hard to imagine how Santa could be immune to such changes himself.”

Critics of this view point to last year’s admission to Oprah by Santa that in the late Middle Ages, he obtained vast supercomputers from the courts of heaven itself.  He did this, according to Santa himself, to help him keep track of who was naughty and who was nice.  Is it really a stretch to imagine that if Santa employed such vast computing power hundreds of years ago, that he must also have long used highly advanced manufacturing techniques?  Perhaps Santa already has nanotechnology and perhaps the image of elves toiling away in fireplace heated workshops was simply an image given to relatively primitive humanity.  Perhaps Santa does not need many elves at all and that, in fact, the North Pole population is very low.

The North Pole has to date made no comments on Judge Talbot’s injunction nor on any pending agreement with Amazon.  This leads the Journal to believe Christmas present distribution will continue on schedule as always.  While last year’s candid interview with Oprah was revealing and shocking – theologians are still coming to grips with some of his revelations – many mysteries remain and perhaps that is what makes Santa Claus and his elves so special.  Fortunately for Apple and the other companies in the lawsuit, people buy their products the other 364 days of the year and, of course, adults do not receive presents from Santa and they like tablets and PlayStations almost as much as children do.  So perhaps in the long run, a bit of charity and good cheer caused by Santa and his Reindeer is not such a bad thing.

Note:  The Judge and economist mentioned here are completely fictitious.  And of course, it goes without saying that Stephen Hawking made no such comments as represented here.