Measuring everything with Hiroshima-Nagasaki

Today's topic is on the heavy side but it has been weighing on my mind lately and I felt I needed to share my thoughts on it.

Everyone is aware of the tragic events of Hiroshima-Nagasaki at the end of WWII in August 1945. When America hit the cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons that devastated the area permanently and killed over 300.000 people. It is one of the most tragic events of the 20th century and is the only known instant of nuclear weapons having been used in warfare in the world. It is an extremely complicated, controversial and difficult event to explain and come to terms with and it's my feeling that it can never be explained properly. But that does not mean we shouldn't try.

Earlier this year, my local library held an exhibition about the events which featured stories of the events, real items from it like singed shirts, shoes and books, pictures and an explanation of the effects this has had upon the area, the Japanese nation and how it is being dealt with today. It was a very well received exhibition and it affected everyone that went there. I know that for me personally, it was devastating to see it. Devastating but necessary. I know many teachers brought high-school students to the exhibition and it affected them a lot, many parents took their children as well to teach them about this difficult history and raise awareness of the issue.

And how does this relate to the TV world?

It seems to me that every single time my favorite TV shows deal with nuclear weapons and distribution of them (or just bombs in general) they always reference Hiroshima-Nagasaki. But not to acknowledge these events or attempt to deal with them. No, it is used as a measuring device. I cannot count how many times I've hear something along the lines of: "The nuclear device is so big it can kill up to 3 million people, that is ten times as much as Hiroshima-Nagasaki". And then all the characters nod seriously. Am I the only one that feels that people are trying to upstage the death toll of Hiroshima-Nagasaki when they do this? It's like: "Yeah sure, those bombs killed 300.000 people but our fictional bombs, they are much deadlier. Take that Hiroshima-Nagasaki!"

NCIS has had this, Castle and NCIS:LA. And for the life of me I cannot understand why. Hiroshima-Nagasaki is what it is - a devastating and terrorizing event with immense political controversy attached to it. It should never be used as a measuring stick for fictional death toll on television. 

It crossed my mind that when measuring death toll I have never heard certain things. I have never heard people comparing death tolls to the lives lost in the Holocaust, the tsunami in 2005, the earthquake in Haiti, The Armenian genocide, the Boznian and Serbian civil war in the early 90's, the civil war in America in the 1860's, the number of people killed by Stalin and so many other events. And it is obvious why, to use those events as a measuring stick for fictional death toll would be highly disrespectful and ignorant. 

So why then is it fair-game to use Hiroshima-Nagasaki as a measuring stick? Devastating events when masses of people die, be it due to war or natural causes should never be used flippantly on TV and never ever as measuring sticks. They should and can be dealt with deftly and with respect. But never ever for the sake of pure entertainment.

I have sometimes written about here my worries on how TV shows approach reality and how it can shift our perception of it. TV represents heightened and freaky reality and should always be taken at a surface level. But when TV reality starts treating the real reality flippantly and without caution and respect, we are on a dangerous path. It seems to me that the TV world is partly on that path already but it can be changed and it should. Otherwise, we are in dangers of starting to approach historical events as if they do not matter, as if history and it's effect isn't real. And that is something we cannot allow to happen. 

(And in case people need a measuring stick instead of Hiroshima-Nagasaki. Iceland has a population of roughly 320.000 people, similar to the death toll of Hiroshima-Nagasaki. So just reference the Icelandic population instead. Much easier, inoffensive and will make a lot of Icelanders happy)

What matters, what not - terror in one place, excess in another

Today's topic is on the heavy side. It has weighed on my mind in the past few days and I have organized my thoughts enough to write coherently about it.

Normally, I do not care a fig about award shows. They go above and beyond me and I have other better things to think about. The most I do is to keep up with the Oscars - only because I love films. The last time I watched an award show for just 5 seconds I felt repulsed. Somehow the showmanship, how excessive it was, the gaudiness, the falsehood of it, the display of riches, the pretentiousness, just the sheer notion of it made me feel sick.

Last Saturday morning, a terrifying terrorist attack was committed in Nairobi, Kenya. It has taken three days to overcome the terrorists and it is truly an international incident, both in regards to the perpetrators and the victims. There was also an explosion in a church in Pakistan which killed almost 80 people and an explosion in Iraq as well...
I have followed the news over the past few days. It is kind of hard to articulate my feelings on it - it ranges from fear to sincere sympathy and endless frustration with the world in which we live today.

Then I realize the Emmy's had just been hosted. And for some arbitrary reason I listened to the beginning monologue of the show - and quit after 2 minutes. I couldn't listen anymore after realizing that this show essentially revolved around people patting themselves on the back for producing TV shows (American) in an golden age of television. Where there were 6000 people in the room and 34 million people watching. It took me back to the Oscars this year when it was stated that the entire world was watching. Yes, quite apparently the entire world follows award ceremony which deals with American films pretty much exclusively and with American actors only.

It seems mind boggling that there are so many award shows hosted every year - Grammy's, Emmy's, Oscar's, Tony's, SAG, Golden Globe, MTV/MTV teen - I mean how often is it needed to celebrate achievements within the American entertainment industry? How often is the parade needed?

And then it hit me - there were people suffering in Kenya and a new threat has just arisen in terrorism, there were people dying in Middle-Eastern countries, civil wars, poverty, economic troubles - at the same time an award show was being hosted, a real glitz and glam and showmanship award show, celebrating achievements in TV shows in America. This paradox is just crazy. Absolutely crazy. In one place there is human suffering and terror - in another there is a display of wealth and superficiality. Both at the same time, in the same world, both involving real people.

I am not going to pretend that things like this are not happening all the time - I live a privileged life myself here in the North (I am not saying I ain't guilty in this paradox as well!). But that does not make this right in any way, just because things are this way does not mean they have to be. And it seems kind of mind boggling this paradox, mind boggling and sickening.

So as I observe this paradox - terror in one place - award show (otherwise known as display of wealth) in another - in the third everyday normal life of a university student.

 I choose the things I care about, I choose my own attitude, I choose what annoys me and what not - Today I choose caring about this paradox and being reminded of my own privileges while at the same time reaffirming my own thoughts toward certain things. 

When torture becomes a sickly source of entertainment

One things that has set my blood boiling is depicting torture or attempts at torture on TV crime dramas. Or as CIA calls them, "enhanced interrogation technique". I am adamantly against all such depictions and find it horrid that people would use such a serious thing as a sickly source of entertainment and suspense. Torture is a serious human rights issue and is to be treated as thus. Never, ever should it be depicted on TV or in film or used as a disgusting source of entertainment. I know the phrase "depicting does not mean endorsing" but still. Such a serious violation of human rights must be treated with the greatest care and seriousness possible. 

Then there enters a series like NCIS:LA which at times loses its footing and all sense of respect and seriousness at times. Scenes of torture or attempts at them have now been depicted occasionally. In no case was it ever necessary for the show to use such scenes. It was just a sick, disgusting way of adding suspense and drama. I find myself staring in disbelief at the screen when such things happen. I get angry. I am going to be absolutely clear in stating that I do not believe in any way that the people involved in the show are endorsing such an act in any way. But the fact that they use such scenes sickens me. It serves no purpose and in my opinion belittles the series, turning such a serious human rights violation into entertainment on TV. 

There are certain scenes I cannot watch from NCIS:LA. I was terrified when I saw in episode 3x14 that Sam was about to waterboard  a suspect. He had a cloth and a water bottle ready. Waterboarding is a known "enhanced interrogation technique", a terrible torture device that is known to have been used in Gitmo to interrogate suspects. I couldn't believe I was seeing this on the show. Why on earth did they decide to include this scene? How on earth did they believe it was okay to show Sam to be willing to torture someone?

And I ave already mentioned my sheer disgust with the torture scenes in episode 4x24. 

NCIS:LA is a show that works on steroids, it embellishes and twist and turns reality. So naturally, boundaries are going to be broken, things are going to be controversial. But there are certain lines that should never ever be broken in my opinion. Shows should have a moral regard for certain things and be careful how they treat them. Because while TV is not reality, it is based on reality and depicts it in a certain way. And reality demands and needs to be treated with respect, sensitivity, care. Because in reality, real human beings are inolved and their suffering should never be made light. 

It worries me that perhaps we have become immune to the terror, human rights and moral  in regards to torture. It has become a source of entertainment, aimed at scaring the viewers and making them react without any regards to making them aware of the incredible seriousness of it. 

It is sickening. 

Gun culture on TV - American vs. Scandinavian views on guns

This is a heavy topic. Very heavy but it's something to tackle. Gun culture here is completely different from gun culture in America. Scandinavia is extremely strict when it comes to gun laws and gun ownership. Police offers here do not carry guns on them when on duty. Gun ownership is very rare among people. In anything, most people are afraid of guns and don't like them. Those who own guns all have to register with the police and gun ownership is very heavily monitored. I once researched the possibility of me taking a gun training course. It turns out I'd first have to register with the local police and put in an application with recommendations from two people and a certificate of good health from my doctor. If the police where to approve my application after a thorough background check I'd be allowed to take the course. But I'd still have to pass it with a grade higher than 75% and I'd need to register with the police.

This is very, very different from gun culture in America and for those of us that view American gun culture from the outside it is something that concerns us. The seeming worship of guns, the importance placed on owning a gun for self protection (from what?), the lack of background checks when it comes to weapon buying, the constant referral to the 2nd amendment as the right to own a gun for self protection and the alarming number of school shootings and the dangers easy access to gun makes.
It is culture we do not understand and are very strongly against.

So when terrible incidents such as school shootings take place, the seemingly crazy gun culture in America becomes a topic of discussion here in Scandinavia and people discuss hotly how wrong the seeming reverence towards guns is. And the craziness of demanding gun ownership for self protection based on the 2nd amendment. We view the gun culture as a very big social problem in America. We respond very strongly to it and view our own attitude towards guns and gun ownership as being a better one. I am going to be brutally honest and say that we consider ourselves superior to American culture in this regard.

These opposing views are best represented in the following clips - This is a FOX news clip concerning the gun ownership of police offers. And yes, we are democratic.

and the reply by a Norwegian man.

So for me, being a part of and agreeing with a culture that is so strict when it comes to gun ownership and is resistant towards guns, viewing gun culture on TV is interesting.

First of all, I always find it strange when the first thing the characters do when facing a situation is whipping out their gun. In my country, the police wouldn't do that. The local police has a special team trained in facing situations where guns are required for protection. You never see police officers carrying arms. Something like that would scare people. In fact, people carrying guns scares me. It seems strange to me that it is the first instinct of the characters to pull out their weapons when there is no need for it. And to constantly aim it at people when there is no threat. That, I do not get.

Secondly, I have zero knowledge of guns. I'm barely able to tell the most basic difference between different types of guns. I had no idea ballistics were considered to be a valid tool in forensics. I had never imagined there were so many different kinds of guns and bullets. It is a science unto itself. So when TV characters spout out gun fact after gun fact my eyes glaze over and I have no idea what they are talking about.

Thirdly I close my eyes when shooting scenes happen most of the time. I am still not comfortable when guns are being shot on TV. Pulling out the gun is one things, using it is completely another. It makes me wince. I will never like it. If that makes me the worlds biggest imp so be it.

Fourthly I am still wondering how in the world the gun scenes are constructed. Do they use real bullets? Are there always paramedics present in case something goes wrong? Who puts the scenes together? Is it possible for the actors to be dislike using guns?

And fifth - why the constant shooting? Is there a demand for constant shooting scenes or is it just for the sake of trying to making the shows more exciting?

Today I found this gem - This is the reason for why Obama really is a great president. He wants to make a change in gun laws and I am guffawed it did not happen.

Obama's speech concerning the gun legislation that was overruled

And for the record - having families that have been shattered by gun violence weigh in on such an important issue is not emotional blackmail or manipulation. It is a reality check for those that are in power to see the terrible effect of gun violence. And don't the families deserve to have a say in a matter like this? Does the opinion of the public not matter?

Do I believe people have the right to protect themselves? Absolutely. I do so 150%. But I also firmly believe in people's right for protection and to me a part of that protection lies in heavy gun control. It helps keep people safe. This is something I continue to try and wrap my head around and as do other people I know. But I will say that I am glad to have grown up in my culture where guns are not a part of people's daily life and people do not depend on guns for safety. I am blessed to live in an incredibly safe place with a wonderful police force that keeps everyone safe. It is not something I would change for the world and I know no person that would.

If it ain't terrorism - it ain't worth writing about

Two days ago I was reading a local news website when I saw the terrible news that an explosion had happened in the middle of Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic. Four persons died and many were injured. The explosion was traced to a gas leak in the building. My heart goes out the the victims and the injured and their families.

Several days after the terrorist attack in Boston there was a terrible explosion in Waco, Texas with many deceased and many people injured. The death toll was more than that of the Boston marathon. I was saddened too by that accident.

But what amazed me was the response of the media. I scoured American media websites looking for any reports on the explosion in Prague and found one minor article on NBC news. Since there have only been minor articles posted on the incident.

The same goes for the Waco explosion. It was featured more in media for the first two days but then there were no more reports of it. None.
Obama has not commented on it or even visited the site, there has been no outpour of grief in the media or from the public. there have been no national memorial services held.
And I wonder why

There was a a great response to the events in Boston where three people died, two Americans and a Chinese citizen and an outpour of grief. Yet I noticed one glaring disparity. All the grief was directed towards the two Americans that died, in blogs, media, everything (save one article on NBC) I have seen articles on remembering the Boston victims where the Chinese citizen that dies wasn't even mentioned! Was her death somehow less significant and less worthy to be remembered because she wasn't an American?

And what about the victims of Waco? I have yet to see any remembrance of the events that happened there that have changed a community for ever. It is somehow as if it isn´t really worthy of the time of the media or of the public to acknowledge these events or offer their support.

And what about the explosion in Prague? It had the same death toll as the events in Boston and yet it is barely mentioned on the news. It is as if it does not matter.

The best reason I can think of why the events in Prague and Waco are not mentioned more in media and why people just don't seem to care is because these were not acts of terrorism. In both cases, things occurred because of a tragic accident. And apparently, accidents are not worth our time or worth the media writing about because they are not news of sensation. There is no terrorist to be hunted down, no impending national security danger, no people to blame. Only hurt, terror, loss, communities left in ruins and wounds that will never fully heal.

But ya know, unless it's terrorism it just ain't worth writing or caring about. People's death doesn't matter, communities ruined doesn't matter, terror and pain doesn't matter if it's caused by an accident. Then it's insignificant and not worthy of our time. There were earthquakes in Pakistan and in China at the same day the Boston events happened and media barely cared.

It is frustrating beyond imagination knowing we all live in a world where media only cares about news when it's sensational, when victims only matter when they die due to terrorism. Anything beyond that are insignificant deaths not worth reporting or caring about. Because we are only affected by sensation it seems. The rest is insignificant.

And in case you think I am only down on American media. Trust me, the media in my own country is even worse.