I read online versions of 4 newspapers: The Fresno Bee, The Seattle Times, The Christian Science Monitor, and, occasionally, The New York Times. The last time I paid for a subscription to a newspaper was more than 4 years ago.
I really don't have time to read the paper everyday, and the newspapers in my geographic area (Southern New Jersey) are pathetic. If I could, I would subscribe to The Fresno Bee (Fresno, CA) as it is still one of the best papers I've ever read. Better than any Seattle or Philadelphia/South Jersey paper. But, seriously, why pay for a print subscription when you can read it online for free?
The only periodical I read religiously is The New Yorker, which posts NO content on their website.
I used to have some semblance of respect for Jon Katz. However, his articles in the last week have wiped out any value his words may have had in my eyes.
I find myself a little confused how he could turn a disgusting and worthless movie like "South Park" into such a virulent, politicized debate about individual rights.
"Children" are not capable of making careful, reasoned decisions about what is appropriate and what is not. However, our society assumes that "adults" are capable of making these choices and set arbitrary year marks to delineate between who is a "child" and who is an "adult." No sane person would advocate the rights of a 5 year old to have access to alcohol, firearms or explosives. That's just silly. However, we allow people of set ages (21 years or whatever) to have access to those kind of privileges, provided they have no history of violence.
So, somewhere between the ages of 5 and 21, we are supposed to gain sufficient maturity and knowledge to make wise decisions about such things like alcohol and other dangerous things. However, this is not a perfect system: I made the decision not to drink when I was 15 years old (too many alcoholic relatives whose lives were destroyed by drunkenness), even though I was still 6 years away from the legal drinking age. My brother, who is now 16, made the same decision this year. My other brother, who is 20, is not quite so responsible or wise.
But to get back to the meat of Katz' article: I find is attack on parenthood appalling and was deeply offended by his blasphemous impersonation of a pastor. When a person--any person, male or female--bring another life into this world, they are responsible for that child's well-being for the rest of their lives. They are responsible to protect them from harm, to provide moral guidance, and to restrict or allow privileges as they see fit. Obviously, Mr. Katz is not himself a parent (or is a pretty poor one) or he would never approach the children of other people with such careless disregard for their welfare. Any normal person with the best interests of the child in mind would not do something like this.
Is there anything good about "South Park?" Any aspect of it that makes it a worthwhile investment of time? Or is it simply amusing? Why does this movie (or any of its similar ilk) deserve to be the rallying cry for rebellious children?
I have never seen "South Park," "Something About Mary" or "American Pie." I never intend to. There is nothing in them worth my time and energy.
While reading (skimming) this discussion, I was disappointed to find no references about the key issue here: morality. I assume that most people would agree with me: killing anybody in this way, no matter who you are or what cause you represent, is wrong. Even in our postmodern American society where violence is glorified in all forms (movies, television, games like Doom, etc.) there are laws which forbid murder with very few exceptions. However, our laws seem increasingly to be in direct conflict with those violent influences. Somewhere along the way, the perpetrators in Littleton stopped believing that murder is wrong and learned to see it as a viable solution to their problems.
I have watched my brothers, my friends, and my husband play games like Quake and Doom for years now and while I dislike the games, I don't worry about violent repercussions in their lives because it hasn't seemed to jeopardize their moral character; their moral sense of right and wrong has remained stable. However, were they different men without a good sense of morality, I would be concerned.
I grieve for the deaths of these children, as I do for children in Kosovo or Uganda or anywhere else in the world, and the only comfort I have is that each person will have to answer to God for what he or she has done. Without my belief in divine justice, the world would seem to be a hopeless place to live.
I am curious about the gender of those that have taken part in the discussion of rape "on" the Internet. Rape is still primarily done by men against women (though there are significant exceptions to this)and I wonder if those who wrote that they did not find the environment inherently dangerous were men.
Perhaps I am more careful than most, but when I left home for college nearly 6 years ago, I made it a habit of mine not to walk around the campus at night by myself, nor would I go out with any man that I didn't know well enough to trust. There were no exceptions. I was a young female in Seattle and acknowledged the fact that just because of those two characteristics, I was a potential target. It isn't a conincidence that I had known the man who became my husband for more than 4 months before I went out alone with him and we'd been friends a full year before we ever went on a date.
Is my experience unusual? Are there others who don't believe this kind of caution is warranted? Is the security of Internet contact with strangers simply an illusion, and should we treat the people we meet online as we would any stranger walking down the street?
Slashdot Mirror
I read online versions of 4 newspapers: The Fresno Bee, The Seattle Times, The Christian Science Monitor, and, occasionally, The New York Times. The last time I paid for a subscription to a newspaper was more than 4 years ago.
I really don't have time to read the paper everyday, and the newspapers in my geographic area (Southern New Jersey) are pathetic. If I could, I would subscribe to The Fresno Bee (Fresno, CA) as it is still one of the best papers I've ever read. Better than any Seattle or Philadelphia/South Jersey paper. But, seriously, why pay for a print subscription when you can read it online for free?
The only periodical I read religiously is The New Yorker, which posts NO content on their website.
I used to have some semblance of respect for Jon Katz. However, his articles in the last week have wiped out any value his words may have had in my eyes.
I find myself a little confused how he could turn a disgusting and worthless movie like "South Park" into such a virulent, politicized debate about individual rights.
"Children" are not capable of making careful, reasoned decisions about what is appropriate and what is not. However, our society assumes that "adults" are capable of making these choices and set arbitrary year marks to delineate between who is a "child" and who is an "adult." No sane person would advocate the rights of a 5 year old to have access to alcohol, firearms or explosives. That's just silly. However, we allow people of set ages (21 years or whatever) to have access to those kind of privileges, provided they have no history of violence.
So, somewhere between the ages of 5 and 21, we are supposed to gain sufficient maturity and knowledge to make wise decisions about such things like alcohol and other dangerous things. However, this is not a perfect system: I made the decision not to drink when I was 15 years old (too many alcoholic relatives whose lives were destroyed by drunkenness), even though I was still 6 years away from the legal drinking age. My brother, who is now 16, made the same decision this year. My other brother, who is 20, is not quite so responsible or wise.
But to get back to the meat of Katz' article:
I find is attack on parenthood appalling and was deeply offended by his blasphemous impersonation of a pastor. When a person--any person, male or female--bring another life into this world, they are responsible for that child's well-being for the rest of their lives. They are responsible to protect them from harm, to provide moral guidance, and to restrict or allow privileges as they see fit. Obviously, Mr. Katz is not himself a parent (or is a pretty poor one) or he would never approach the children of other people with such careless disregard for their welfare. Any normal person with the best interests of the child in mind would not do something like this.
Is there anything good about "South Park?" Any aspect of it that makes it a worthwhile investment of time? Or is it simply amusing? Why does this movie (or any of its similar ilk) deserve to be the rallying cry for rebellious children?
I have never seen "South Park," "Something About Mary" or "American Pie." I never intend to. There is nothing in them worth my time and energy.
While reading (skimming) this discussion, I was disappointed to find no references about the key issue here: morality. I assume that most people would agree with me: killing anybody in this way, no matter who you are or what cause you represent, is wrong. Even in our postmodern American society where violence is glorified in all forms (movies, television, games like Doom, etc.) there are laws which forbid murder with very few exceptions. However, our laws seem increasingly to be in direct conflict with those violent influences. Somewhere along the way, the perpetrators in Littleton stopped believing that murder is wrong and learned to see it as a viable solution to their problems.
I have watched my brothers, my friends, and my husband play games like Quake and Doom for years now and while I dislike the games, I don't worry about violent repercussions in their lives because it hasn't seemed to jeopardize their moral character; their moral sense of right and wrong has remained stable. However, were they different men without a good sense of morality, I would be concerned.
I grieve for the deaths of these children, as I do for children in Kosovo or Uganda or anywhere else in the world, and the only comfort I have is that each person will have to answer to God for what he or she has done. Without my belief in divine justice, the world would seem to be a hopeless place to live.
I am curious about the gender of those that have taken part in the discussion of rape "on" the Internet. Rape is still primarily done by men against women (though there are significant exceptions to this)and I wonder if those who wrote that they did not find the environment inherently dangerous were men.
Perhaps I am more careful than most, but when I left home for college nearly 6 years ago, I made it a habit of mine not to walk around the campus at night by myself, nor would I go out with any man that I didn't know well enough to trust. There were no exceptions. I was a young female in Seattle and acknowledged the fact that just because of those two characteristics, I was a potential target. It isn't a conincidence that I had known the man who became my husband for more than 4 months before I went out alone with him and we'd been friends a full year before we ever went on a date.
Is my experience unusual? Are there others who don't believe this kind of caution is warranted? Is the security of Internet contact with strangers simply an illusion, and should we treat the people we meet online as we would any stranger walking down the street?