I have expressed my annoyance before with the word "comfortable" and how on earth it should be pronounced in English. TV shows have proven to be quite the linguistic tool for me and I've enjoyed the linguistic challenges I get from watching TV. Last night NCIS answered my request. I watched episode 10x23, "Double Blind" and loved it. But what made me laugh was the fact that the word "uncomfortable" was said two times within a very short period of time. So I could finally here the way it is properly pronounced. Thank you to NCIS!
And life goes on in TV language land. NCIS:LA proved to be another linguistic tool. The country Montenegro was mention, although it was first called Monaco (they were referencing a James Bond film that takes place in Montenegro). I couldn't help but laugh when Kensi not only corrected it but asked Deeks to say where it was. He got it right, it is indeed in Europe, but it did sound like he wasn't completely sure and Kensi picked up on that. Sometimes you just gotta love the geography puns.
This interested me for several reasons. First of all, in my language we do not refer to the country by the name of Montenegro. We use the translated version of the name in my language. That sounds completely different from the title Montenegro so it took me a moment to connect the two. But I did and the reason why I know where Montenegro is, is because of Eurovision. I have been watching Eurovision snce I was little and that includes watching the countries giving out points every single year. Eurovision is such a tradition here that every Scandinavian knows the phrase "Country, 12 points" in both French and English. And every year I've heard the phrase "Serbia and Montenegro" together. So that's why I know where it's located on the map. But this year Serbia and Montenegro are competing separately.
The same goes for the country Belarus. Belarus is Russian for "white Russia". And in my language we refer to the country as "White Russia" not by the traditional title. So a few years back when I was looking at a map of Europe from an American geography atlas I got frustrated when I saw the name Belarus and I did not know what country it was. After some googling I discovered it was the country that I call "White Russia".
And another language reference I completely enjoyed was in episode 2x17 of NCIS. Ducky was explaining to origin of the phrase "red herring" and what it means. I thought his explanation was very interesting and it highlighted one of my favorite points of language, how much is behind each word and the history. I loved the explanation of that people used red herring to train dogs for fox hunting to smell and then they'd drag red herring over the tracks of a real fox to see whether the dogs would be fool and hence the phrase.
Then I realized I didn't know what the word herring actually meant. I always connected it a fowl of some sort but it turns out it's fish.
So for an English major, I still have a lot to learn. But I love it. Discovering and using language gives me great joy and I love learning new things and how the English language continues to surprise me. And watching TV does help. And I have discovered the reason why. I learned English mostly through the medium of reading so I am very strong in that area. English on TV is more colloquial and that is not an area I am as strong in.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Monday, May 6, 2013
Eurovision - Part 1
The next two weeks will be very exciting for me in TV land. First of all the two final episodes of all my favorite series will be airing. But more imporantly, EUROVISION IS FINALLY HERE!! Next week will be a dream come true for a Eurovision fan like me as there will be the two semi-finals and then the all time final. And it's taking place here in Scandinavia, in the lovely country of Sweden. To say we are getting overly excited here in the North would be an understatement.
For those who do not know Eurovision is an annual song contest held here in Europe in which most European nations send in one song and compete to win the competition. The nation that wins each year hosts the competition the following year. This is a very big and exciting venue in which each European country gets to display some of their finest artists and music for all of Europe to see. The competition takes six days on total and is aired over entire Europe. It is a matter of national pride for every nation to send in their best song and make sure it does well. In most European countries there is an in-country song competition to decide which song should be sent to represent the country. This is a very big event and the excitement for it begins in early January and starts building up until the semi-finals and final in May.
Eurovision is a strange animal. In a continent so divided and frustrating as Europe is, it is a wonder we can all come together and enjoy a song contest and lay aside our differences for just a little while (or pretend to at least). A lot of European countries have been at war with each other and there is a great deal of resentment and even hatred between many European nations which makes it tricky to host such a competition. But somehow, every year we manage it to do it.
Every country is desperate to win because not only is it a big honor but it also gives the country an excellent opportunity to introduce itself and its culture the year it hosts. There is also great national pride and patriotism involved in Eurovision. Every person that watches wants his/her country to win or at least do well no matter how good or bad their song is. You are proud of your country and you want it to do well. Also, considering the fact that many European countries are former colonies of other European countries that did not always treat their colonies well, many people want their country to do well to show the former colonists that they can manage without them. It becomes a display of national pride and patriotism. And even if we are able to lay aside our differences for a little while the resentment between countries still comes up.
Eurovision is a spetacle, each year the songs get stranger and the performances get more dramatic and weird. Everyone is always trying to outdo one another. Watching Eurovision is like watching a competition for the strangest performance in the world. Sometimes there are no words for the things that are seen on stage, only shaking of the head.
Eurovision is a massive event but the strange thing is that it is really only popular in Northern-Europe and Eastern Europe. Scandinavian LOVE Eurovision and its a major part of our culture.If you are a Scandinavian, you love Eurovision. It is a cultural event which unites millions of people but still divides us all the same. It shows the unity of Europe but at the same time the glaring differences between countries.
For those who do not know Eurovision is an annual song contest held here in Europe in which most European nations send in one song and compete to win the competition. The nation that wins each year hosts the competition the following year. This is a very big and exciting venue in which each European country gets to display some of their finest artists and music for all of Europe to see. The competition takes six days on total and is aired over entire Europe. It is a matter of national pride for every nation to send in their best song and make sure it does well. In most European countries there is an in-country song competition to decide which song should be sent to represent the country. This is a very big event and the excitement for it begins in early January and starts building up until the semi-finals and final in May.
Eurovision is a strange animal. In a continent so divided and frustrating as Europe is, it is a wonder we can all come together and enjoy a song contest and lay aside our differences for just a little while (or pretend to at least). A lot of European countries have been at war with each other and there is a great deal of resentment and even hatred between many European nations which makes it tricky to host such a competition. But somehow, every year we manage it to do it.
Every country is desperate to win because not only is it a big honor but it also gives the country an excellent opportunity to introduce itself and its culture the year it hosts. There is also great national pride and patriotism involved in Eurovision. Every person that watches wants his/her country to win or at least do well no matter how good or bad their song is. You are proud of your country and you want it to do well. Also, considering the fact that many European countries are former colonies of other European countries that did not always treat their colonies well, many people want their country to do well to show the former colonists that they can manage without them. It becomes a display of national pride and patriotism. And even if we are able to lay aside our differences for a little while the resentment between countries still comes up.
Eurovision is a spetacle, each year the songs get stranger and the performances get more dramatic and weird. Everyone is always trying to outdo one another. Watching Eurovision is like watching a competition for the strangest performance in the world. Sometimes there are no words for the things that are seen on stage, only shaking of the head.
Eurovision is a massive event but the strange thing is that it is really only popular in Northern-Europe and Eastern Europe. Scandinavian LOVE Eurovision and its a major part of our culture.If you are a Scandinavian, you love Eurovision. It is a cultural event which unites millions of people but still divides us all the same. It shows the unity of Europe but at the same time the glaring differences between countries.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Favorite news outlets
I am interested in news. I grew up in a home where the radio was constantly on and I got used to hearing the news all day long. News hour and listening to news became a part of life. I like being on top of things and knowing what's going on (in part due to the fact that nothing ever happens in my area). But at the same time, I've had to develop media literacy and savvy and realize what's behind the news and how subjective news outlets can be (FOX news f.ex). I got a pretty rough crash course in media literacy a few years back and it's stuck with me ever since and did before.
So when I listen to and get caught up on news I try to go for the reporters and the news outlets I trust the most and feel that convey the most balanced view on the subject. I don't have the luxury of being able to do so when it comes to radio stations since my area only has a few Scandinavian news outlets and they're not so good as well as BBC. But when it comes to TV and online I go for the news outlets I trust the most.
And my favorite English news outlets are:
NBC - I started following NBC news online only a few months back and so far I have been impressed with the way they follow news. I am particularly impressed with how detailed their news are and well researched but also the fact they take a balanced view point to things and report objectively on them. I also love the daily photo section on their website.
Al Jazeera - This is one of the best news outlets in the world in my opinion. They report unflinchingly on both the good and the bad that goes on in the world and are unafraid to show the underbelly of various things which other news outlets might not show. I enjoy the focus they have on Middle-Eastern news and what goes on there. I am particularly impressed with how they report things in an open and true manner and they focus on things that really matter. I am always impressed when I watch their news hours and I enjoy reading the blog section on their website as it is always interesting and has valuable and thoughtful topics.
BBC - I grew up listening to the BBC and it has been my favorite news outlet for years. It is a British news outlet but in my opinion they never fail to report openly and unflinchingly on matters and I am always impressed with them. If I need a live feed on some event I go on BBC. I trust them to deliver the best news and with the rightest information. My particular favorite BBC news program is the American news hour. I tune into BBC every time I turn the television and I regularly listen to it on radio as well. My family and friends all trust the BBC most as a news outlet and will continue to do so.
And one day I will write about the intolerable insanity of Scandinavian news outlets.
So when I listen to and get caught up on news I try to go for the reporters and the news outlets I trust the most and feel that convey the most balanced view on the subject. I don't have the luxury of being able to do so when it comes to radio stations since my area only has a few Scandinavian news outlets and they're not so good as well as BBC. But when it comes to TV and online I go for the news outlets I trust the most.
And my favorite English news outlets are:
NBC - I started following NBC news online only a few months back and so far I have been impressed with the way they follow news. I am particularly impressed with how detailed their news are and well researched but also the fact they take a balanced view point to things and report objectively on them. I also love the daily photo section on their website.
Al Jazeera - This is one of the best news outlets in the world in my opinion. They report unflinchingly on both the good and the bad that goes on in the world and are unafraid to show the underbelly of various things which other news outlets might not show. I enjoy the focus they have on Middle-Eastern news and what goes on there. I am particularly impressed with how they report things in an open and true manner and they focus on things that really matter. I am always impressed when I watch their news hours and I enjoy reading the blog section on their website as it is always interesting and has valuable and thoughtful topics.
BBC - I grew up listening to the BBC and it has been my favorite news outlet for years. It is a British news outlet but in my opinion they never fail to report openly and unflinchingly on matters and I am always impressed with them. If I need a live feed on some event I go on BBC. I trust them to deliver the best news and with the rightest information. My particular favorite BBC news program is the American news hour. I tune into BBC every time I turn the television and I regularly listen to it on radio as well. My family and friends all trust the BBC most as a news outlet and will continue to do so.
And one day I will write about the intolerable insanity of Scandinavian news outlets.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Women in Comedy - They are funny!
One of my most favorite TV shows of all time and gave me a lot of good memories and laughter is "Smack the Pony". It is an old British comedy sketch show in which three spectacular female actors wrote, performed and produced one quality sketch after another. I was raised on a very heavy diet of British humor and this show made me laugh over and over again. I still grin when I think back to the best scenes of the show. It is difficult to put into words how much I loved it and how much it made me laugh. I have very fond memories of it.
At the time I was devoutly watching it, I didn't give a second thought to the fact that the show was entirely made by women. There was one male actor that showed up regularly but otherwise all the roles, all the material, all the production was in the hands of women. And they created a wonderful show. Three awesome women together created one of the best sketch shows I have ever seen.
This struck me recently when I was listening to and laughing over the stand-up comedy of Shappi Khorsandi and Andi Osho. Those are both genius British stand-up comedians and my favorite one's at the moment. I have likewise also listened to Tina Fey's and Amy Poehler's monologue at the Golden Globe over and over again and it makes me laugh each and every time. It it a bad idea to listen to them while studying at the Uni library because last time I did I had to stifle my laughter and people kept glancing at the mad person that was always giggling.
I love comedy. I love things that make me laugh. It does not matter to me whether the comedian is a male or female, only whether he or she makes me laugh and makes me happy. But it seems to be a very common and persistent notion in today's world that women just can't be funny. Sketch shows and comedy produced and played by women in still not being accepted and people view it with apprehension. The majority of stand up comedians and comic actors today are males (particularly white males). Women trying to get on in the business and show their material run into wall after wall and good old fashioned sexism because of the persistent notion that females simply can't be funny.
It's mind blowing that it's 2013 and people are still struggling with accepting the notion that women can be funny. It still seems to be a new thing that women can be funny.
Sexism, patriarchy, inequality is still well and alive today and it seems that it´ll continue for a while if we are still struggling with the notion that women really can be funny to the same caliber and even better than men.
This is making my brain go in circles and will continue to do so.
But here is some comedy from my favorite female stand-up comedians!
Shappi Khorsandi is an absolute genius. Her stand up comedy is brilliant but also socially critical.
Andi Osho is a genius and I love how bold her comedy is.
Tina Fey's and Amy Poehler's monologue was pure genius.
And the anthem of my youth to quote Deeks on NCIS:LA - Smack the Pony!
At the time I was devoutly watching it, I didn't give a second thought to the fact that the show was entirely made by women. There was one male actor that showed up regularly but otherwise all the roles, all the material, all the production was in the hands of women. And they created a wonderful show. Three awesome women together created one of the best sketch shows I have ever seen.
This struck me recently when I was listening to and laughing over the stand-up comedy of Shappi Khorsandi and Andi Osho. Those are both genius British stand-up comedians and my favorite one's at the moment. I have likewise also listened to Tina Fey's and Amy Poehler's monologue at the Golden Globe over and over again and it makes me laugh each and every time. It it a bad idea to listen to them while studying at the Uni library because last time I did I had to stifle my laughter and people kept glancing at the mad person that was always giggling.
I love comedy. I love things that make me laugh. It does not matter to me whether the comedian is a male or female, only whether he or she makes me laugh and makes me happy. But it seems to be a very common and persistent notion in today's world that women just can't be funny. Sketch shows and comedy produced and played by women in still not being accepted and people view it with apprehension. The majority of stand up comedians and comic actors today are males (particularly white males). Women trying to get on in the business and show their material run into wall after wall and good old fashioned sexism because of the persistent notion that females simply can't be funny.
It's mind blowing that it's 2013 and people are still struggling with accepting the notion that women can be funny. It still seems to be a new thing that women can be funny.
Sexism, patriarchy, inequality is still well and alive today and it seems that it´ll continue for a while if we are still struggling with the notion that women really can be funny to the same caliber and even better than men.
This is making my brain go in circles and will continue to do so.
But here is some comedy from my favorite female stand-up comedians!
Shappi Khorsandi is an absolute genius. Her stand up comedy is brilliant but also socially critical.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Lessons learned from TV - the silly edition
These past couple of days I have learned 'important lessons' when it comes to TV
1)I finally learned how to properly pronounce the word 'pneumonia' after watching episode 5x01 of NCIS where Palmer and Ducky discuss the fact that DiNozzo had pneumatic plague at one point.
The word 'pneumonia' is one of the most annoying words in the English language when it comes to pronouncing. I would have have gone for pronouncing the 'pn' sound together (which sounds awful) or simply swap the 'p' sound for an 'f' sound which is not much better. But now I finally know it is pronounced like 'newnomia'!
Sometimes, watching TV shows brings along the added bonus of getting a free language/accent lesson.
2)It is always a very very bad idea to be eating food while watching shows. Today I re-watched episode 4x22 of NCIS:Los Angeles and I laughed so hard I could barely eat and had to take special care I wouldn't accidentally spit all the food out because of laughter
And I also rewatched episode 8x04 of NCIS with Tony being the face of the new NCIS brochure. Again I was eating and again I almost spit all my food out from laughing.
3)NCIS:LA producers seem to have decided that Russia and Ukraine would be the focus of their series along with the USSR. Rarely, if ever, have I heard some many references to Russia and USSR, seen so many Russian characters or had so many plot lines centered on something connected to Russia or Eastern Europe than on NCIS:LA. It was very clear in episode 4x22 when Hetty recounted an old urban spy legend about Ukraine and it sounded like she had recruited orphans from Ukraine to become NCIS agents. It is kind of strange they decided to focus on this particular area of the world and I wonder what made them decide to do it. Because, to be honest, they could at times do a much better job of representing those countries at times.
4)In episode 3x06 of Castle, Rick happily refers to the glacier that was meant to lead to the center of the earth in "Around the world in 80 days" as Sneffels. Sorry pal but the pronunciation is waaaayyyy off and this scene probably had a few Scandinavians wincing. But I wont criticize, seeing how I am still hating the word 'comfortably'
And here is an excellent article on typecasting on TV and stereotypes in TV characters - How to navigate stereotypes
And this one from Jezebel - Retta talks race
1)I finally learned how to properly pronounce the word 'pneumonia' after watching episode 5x01 of NCIS where Palmer and Ducky discuss the fact that DiNozzo had pneumatic plague at one point.
The word 'pneumonia' is one of the most annoying words in the English language when it comes to pronouncing. I would have have gone for pronouncing the 'pn' sound together (which sounds awful) or simply swap the 'p' sound for an 'f' sound which is not much better. But now I finally know it is pronounced like 'newnomia'!
Sometimes, watching TV shows brings along the added bonus of getting a free language/accent lesson.
2)It is always a very very bad idea to be eating food while watching shows. Today I re-watched episode 4x22 of NCIS:Los Angeles and I laughed so hard I could barely eat and had to take special care I wouldn't accidentally spit all the food out because of laughter
And I also rewatched episode 8x04 of NCIS with Tony being the face of the new NCIS brochure. Again I was eating and again I almost spit all my food out from laughing.
3)NCIS:LA producers seem to have decided that Russia and Ukraine would be the focus of their series along with the USSR. Rarely, if ever, have I heard some many references to Russia and USSR, seen so many Russian characters or had so many plot lines centered on something connected to Russia or Eastern Europe than on NCIS:LA. It was very clear in episode 4x22 when Hetty recounted an old urban spy legend about Ukraine and it sounded like she had recruited orphans from Ukraine to become NCIS agents. It is kind of strange they decided to focus on this particular area of the world and I wonder what made them decide to do it. Because, to be honest, they could at times do a much better job of representing those countries at times.
4)In episode 3x06 of Castle, Rick happily refers to the glacier that was meant to lead to the center of the earth in "Around the world in 80 days" as Sneffels. Sorry pal but the pronunciation is waaaayyyy off and this scene probably had a few Scandinavians wincing. But I wont criticize, seeing how I am still hating the word 'comfortably'
And here is an excellent article on typecasting on TV and stereotypes in TV characters - How to navigate stereotypes
And this one from Jezebel - Retta talks race
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)