Should you laugh at these cartoons?

I was perusing DA and I stumbled across some very interesting political cartoons. The first of which was rather amusing because of its content and the overly devious-looking caricatures. The second, however, wasn’t so funny, but it definitely proved my point about this so-called “war” (a.k.a. another excuse for Bush to have wartime presidential powers) in Iraq. Both of the images are below, but I’ve also given a link back to the artists who made each of them, respectively. If you agree with their drawings, or even if you don’t, you are more than welcome to comment here, but please also comment on their artists’ pages at DA (by following the links).

Click to see the full-size image:
Evidence
Created by DeviantArtist Spheredra

Click to see the full-size image:
Just Following Orders
Created by DeviantArtist Latuff2

Please check out those artists’ wonderful galleries and give them the support they need by commenting! These two images, while technically political cartoons, truly show what war is like. I’m reminded of a quote from the children’s movie Because of Winn Dixie, where Opal (the young girl protagonist) is listening to the librarian who says “War is hell.” One of the boys listening gasps “hell is a cuss word!,” to which the librarian responds “war should be a cuss word too!”

|:| Zach |:|

Like it was yesterday…

I am yet again re-reading Dr. Dan Kindlon & Dr. Michael Thompson’s Raising Cain. There is just something about this particular book that sets it apart from all the rest on the same subject. Do you know what that something is? It is an easy read with lots of case study excerpts, but the two authors manage to utilise those microcosms in such a way that the reader is bombarded with evidence supporting the chapter’s underlying principle. Every time I read this book, I have a new favourite chapter. This time–though I haven’t finished the book yet–chapter 3 had the heaviest impact on me.

Chapter 3 is about discipline; how harsh it can be, the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment and verbal abuse, and the disparity between how boys are typically punished and how girls are typically punished for the same act. While the entire chapter offers incredible insight into disciplining boys, I can’t quote it all for obvious copyright reasons. I will, however, give you just a taste of the wonderful things presented in this chapter. Firstly, Kindlon and Thompson suggest that “we impose a ‘tyranny of toughness’ on boys and men” (2000, p. 54). That single statement encompasses a plethora of facets regarding not only discipline in the home and at school, but also the state and federal systems of [in]justice. The authors give detailed statistics about incarceration being much more prominent for males of any age than their female counterparts. I believe this passage is radically important for many reasons, but one more so than any of the others. This harsher punishment for males stemmed from one idea that has perpetuated itself throughout time and culture. I find that aspect to be vastly significant because it illuminates the importance of standing up for one’s beliefs. If all it takes for injustice to prevail is for people to not speak out against something that is wrong, then society as a whole is in for some serious political and judicial turmoil.

Raising Cain

Secondly, the authors demonstrate just how devastating the effects of the sex-based discipline disparity truly are. Dr. Thompson initiates this discussion by introducing a case study about a ninth grade “troublemaker” named Nick (Kindlon & Thompson, 2000). After the school shrugged him off as being immature, he was referred to Dr. Thompson for counseling. Thompson makes a bold, yet readily justified conclusion that:

If a girl were the most annoying person in the ninth grade, everyone would want to know what was going on inside her head. If a boy is the most annoying person in the ninth grade, many people simply say: “Jesus, what an irritating kid. He needs some discipline.” Many adults lack curiosity about the motivation of boys[, but] rarely are they reluctant to throw the book at them (Kindlon & Thompson, 2000, p. 60).

Thirdly, the authors give some examples of things parents have said regarding corporal punishment or frequently raising their voices at their kids (a euphemistic way of saying ‘verbal abuse’). They initially describe bath time in a family with four young boys. Two boys are causing a wave pool in the tub, and the other two are popping one another in the butt with rolled-up towels. For obvious reasons, this type of situation would likely frustrate Mum or Dad. However, this particular Dad looked at his wife and said “‘Take a good look, because some day you’re going to miss this'” (Kindlon & Thompson, 2000, p. 60). This father realised that this type of energy may seem annoying and severely frustrating at the time, but it is also one of the really fun aspects of parenting. Contrasting this positive outlook on a situation usually considered to be dastardly run amuck, several parents commented in favour of spanking, saying that it’s “‘getting a bad name,'” but that “‘you have to let your son know that you have the ultimate weapon'” (Kindlon & Thompson, 2000, p. 61). This is the comment that baffled me the most. If one’s only control over one’s child is intimidation and fear of physical pain, then I believe that a careful reflection about parenting is in store. Simply hitting a child may provide the immediate gratification of stopping the undesired behaviour, but it absolutely does not teach the child the appropriate or better way to respond in a given situation. Worse yet, years later as adults, those individuals may not remember all the nice things their parents said to them, but the will remember being hit or yelled at “‘like it was yesterday'” (Kindlon & Thompson, 2000, p. 65).

Instead of resorting to slapping a child when he or she does something wrong, taking advantage of that situation and teaching him or her the appropriate way to act proves to be far more effective parenting. Understandably, most of those situations try one’s patience, but taking them time to explain things is vital to a child’s understanding of the world and social situations, self-esteem, and the beliefs that he or she will apply when parenting his or her own children.

|:| Zach |:|


REFERENCES:
Kindlon, D., & Thompson, M. (2000). Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys. New York: Ballantine Books.

Contact

I know that the movie has been out for quite some time–the original release date being 11 July 1997–but I recently watched it again and believe that a critique is in store. This film was an attempt to capture all the complexities and mind-bending ideas of Carl Sagan’s book of the same name. Sagan didn’t just write a science fiction book about alien life, worm holes, and government attempts to cover up unexplainable happenings. Instead, his book, and consequently this film, grappled all the political bouts, scientific argumentation, religious qualms, and personal struggles for understanding that surround a breakthrough of any kind. In this particular film, that breakthrough happened to be making contact extraterrestrial life.

This movie brought all of those interwoven perspectives to the forefront and presented them in a way that made one feel both enlightened and boggled. At one point it may seem like one should favour science and fully support Dr. Arroway (Jodie Foster) in her battle for recognition of her discovery. Moments later, a persuasive argument from Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey) will make one rethink one’s beliefs about the impact of science on human life and social development. With all of these ideas flying around, the viewer has the option of simply shrugging them off as political mumbo-jumbo, or actually genuflecting and assimilating the new perspectives in with one’s current schemata.

Contact--Jodie Foster

Regarding other aspects of quality filmmaking, this particular movie didn’t have anything wildly impressive in the way of cinematography other than its use of vivid colours in the penultimate scene. Most of the camera angles were quite typical of dramatic productions, and the lighting was nothing out of the ordinary. Character development was steady, yet overtly linear. Despite these areas that could have been more artistically done, the content of the movie earned it a high rating in my eyes. However, I cannot give this movie a perfect score, nor as high of a score as I would potentially like. “Well why not?,” you might ask. As trivial as it may seem on the surface, one particular scene caused me to question a lot of the otherwise nicely executed character roles. In the scene in which Dr. Arroway and Palmer Joss are standing out on the balcony at the ceremonial ball, Arroway brings up the scientific statute of Ockham’s Razor (sometimes referred to as “Occam’s Razor” or even as the “law of parsimony,”). Joss acts puzzled by the mere mentioning of the principle and aptly states “it sounds like some sort of slasher movie.” While I don’t necessarily expect anyone and everyone to know that it is the principle stating that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, I would expect a theologian specialising in and writing a book on the interplay between science and religion to not only know of the Razor but to have also extensively pondered its multifaceted implications for both disciplines, respectively (McGrade, 2002). That error, in my opinion, is large enough to make a viewer question the rest of the research that went into character formation.

That being said, I did like this film very much, and give it 7 stars out of 10. 🙂

|:| Zach |:|

———-
REFERENCES:

McGrade, A.S. (2002). The political thought of William Ockham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.