A Tale of Two Stories

Every media has its own bias. No matter how big or how small, there is always a biased perspective. That is why we need at least two points of view. With the Palestinian and Israeli violence going on right now in the Middle East, the war has also spread from the battlefields to the Internet world. Call it propaganda or misrepresentation the other side, the truth is, people are prone to have a strong first impression when the news is dramatically described. Let me share just one example.

Story #1 - A Pro-Palestinian Bias

There is a map that has been circulated widely on the Internet recently. It certainly makes the Israelis look bad. The way the visual goes is that the problem lies in only one party. Israel is the bully.

Story #1 - A Pro-Palestinian Bias

Story #2 - A Pro-Israeli Bias

Check out the next story, which is pro-Israeli. It addresses each of the four maps individually, calling it a misrepresentation of facts.

1. Map 1 (1946): No State of Palestine but the British Mandate
2. Map 2 (1947): The U.N. Partition Plan - never came into existence (where the Palestinians openly reject the plan.
3. Map 3 (1949-67): Jordanian West Bank, Egyptian Gaza (map changes due to Arab aggression and Israel retaliation)
4. Map 4 (2000): Omitting the key facts

Story #2 thus proposes a new map.

Story #2 - Pro-Israel Bias

Who is correct? You tell me.

c

Three Reflections: Of Anti-West, of Will and Kate, and of .....

My three reflections on the top three news events this week.

The past week has been a sad testimony of the wrong end of the debate between the rights of self-expression vs the responsibility of neighbourliness. I want to take some time to reflect on three major news events this week. The first is about the anti-American violence in the Middle East, no thanks to the film and the notorious Terry Jones. The second is about the irresponsible publishing of private photos of the British Royal couple, William and Kate. The third, read on....

A) Anti-Western Sentiment

(Credit: MFS - The Other News)

The first is the wave of anti-American (even anti-Western) sentiment gushing through the Middle East this moment. In the West, the laws of the Western world allows film-makers pretty much a free hand to make films that are offensive to other cultures. In the name of free speech and self-expression, a group has made a film called "Innocence of Muslims" which essentially depicts images of Islam which are clearly offensive to Muslims. Worse, the notorious American pastor, Terry Jones, previously known for his stance on burning Qurans, openly supports the movie. Even sillier, is the provocative 2-minute clip played on Egyptian Islamic TV! As a result, like a spark that lights up a trail of gunpowder, anti-American sentiment swept through the Middle East. From Egypt to Yemen, Syria to Libya, Lebanon to Jordan, angry mobs hit out at American symbols. One US diplomat was killed in Jordan. Many compounds of American embassies were stormed, despite the police presence. Even commercial outlets like KFC were not spared. What seemed to be a set of personal beliefs that are anti-Islam in the film had generated so much violence. Worse, even today, I got an email from someone that uses the recent Islamic violence as evidence of "great darkness" and "radical Islamic militants" in the Middle East. I strongly object to these for the following reasons.

1. Great darkness is already everywhere. is not only on the Middle East. The whole world is in Great Darkness. If anyone in the West is adamant that the darkness is elsewhere, especially the Middle-East, they ought to take a look at their own backyard. Look at the sinful environment, the poverty, the drug problem, the symbols of sexual immorality, and so on. Look at the secularism of society that has cast doubts on the sanctity of life, or the sexual perversions.
2. "Radical Islamic Militants" are not the only ones who are radical. I think Terry Jones is also radical. Why leave him out? The majority of the Christian world do not support him or his actions. 
3. Tempting Violent Behaviour: The provocative film has basically one goal: to taunt Muslims in the name of "sharing truth." Dangle a fish before an eagle, or a goat before a tiger. The predator will gobble up the prey. For that matter, what if someone outside a West produces a movie that taunts the integrity of the American society? Will that not inflame feelings in the West? 
4. Balance Right of Free Speech with Responsibility. Just having a gun in our hands does not mean we can go around shooting people. It is wrong to use our license for free speech to hurt others. Ever watch Spiderman? The classic words at the end of the movie is this: With great power comes great responsibility. 
5. Creating New Radicals Instead: Most critically, films like these or anything that denigrates other beliefs or people groups will raise up the real radicals. Even if there are no radicals in the first place, repeated signals will easily create one. The younger ones who are watching television or modern media on the Internet, can be easily influenced or inflamed by all kinds of things. 

Unfortunately, one radical Terry Jones and the small filmmaker have cast a long dark shadow that has implicated and ruined any good impressions outsiders ever had on the West. For that matter, if we are able to recognize that Terry Jones do not represent the rest of the Christian world, let us also remember that the scattered groups of Islamic radicals DO NOT represent the rest of the Muslim world.

B) Photos That Embarass the Royal Couple

(Credit: CBSNews)

In Singapore and Malaysia during their tour in the Far East, Prince William and Kate were both "deeply saddened" by photos from a French tabloid that published photos of their private moments during their holiday.  It brings back moments of how Lady Diana had been taunted and pursued by the Papparazi just before her death in a tragic accident. Are all these necessary? Don't these press people have more important things to do? I am also appalled at the way the French magazine has behaved. Free speech that infringes on the privacy of others is not free speech. It is irresponsible use of freedom of speech. I posted on Facebook the following seven things.

1. Don't Google for the pictures. Never ever. 
2. Don't publicize the magazines that produce the offensive photos.
3. Boycott them or any of their agents.
4. Condemn the act not just on privacy invasion but for irresponsibility of their use of freedom. 
5. Tell others not to search for the pictures. 
6. Remember the golden rule. Do to others what you want others to do to you. Those of us who have children, will we want people to violate their privacy?
7. Respect the privacy of the royals. They need privacy too, like you and me. 

In defending the publication of the "topless photos," the editor of the magazine defended their actions by saying that "they are not shocking." Even if it is true, I find their attitude and stance, "shocking."

C) The Apple iPhone 5

(Photo Credit: Apple.com)

Set to become one of the best runaway hits by the present most valuable company in America, Apple is poised to grab even more market-share with their latest version of the popular smartphone. Even as competitors are coming up with powerful and competent alternatives, Apple still has the leadership in terms of marketing and fan following. Do we really need to upgrade? I must say the Apple marketing engine has never been so effective and convincing. Even my daughter has told me about friends of hers who can rattle off Apple information better than any school subject. Here is a tip from Wendell Berry about upgrading our technologies. In his classic statement about "Why I am NOT going to buy a computer," Wendell Berry gives the following guidelines when it comes to technological upgrading.

1. The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.
2. It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.
3. It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces. 
4. It should use less energy than the one it replaces. 
5. If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that of the body. 
6. It should be repairable by a person of ordinary intelligence, provided that he or she has the necessary tools. 
7. It should be purchasable and repairable as near to home as possible. 
8. It should come from a small, privately owned shop or store that will take it back for maintenance and repair. 
9. It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships.

Whether we ought to upgrade to iPhone 5, and to enrich the more than US$97billion cash hoard at Apple, we must also seriously think about the opportunity cost of the upgrade. Can our money spent on upgrading be used better elsewhere?

conrade

Shameful CTV One-Sided Reporting

Recently, CTV did an 'investigative' journalism on a counselling session at one of Vancouver's crisis pregnancy center. The reporter concerned, pretended to be pregnant and sought 'counselling.' Finally, the whole 'investigative report' compresses the entire investigation into a less than 5 minutes video clip shown on national TV. If you watch the video carefully, note the following:

• Pregnancy Pretense: Controversial ethics in question about falsifying one's identity and bringing in hidden cameras to 'expose' a non-profit organization as if the organization is guilty-until-proven-innocent;
• Why only one point of view? Clearly the report is geared toward casting doubts on the credibility of the crisis pregnancy center.
• Biased reporting: The reporter appears to be bent on hammering the organization that is against abortion.

The MP has raised concerns about such one-sided reporting, which clearly goes against the spirit of fair reporting. In the press release, Maurice Vellacort writes:

“It is CTV’s duty, as a Canadian broadcaster, to treat fairly all sides of a controversial issue,... It is no secret that abortion is a controversial issue. Relying almost exclusively on views espoused by abortion providers and abortion advocacy organizations for a story about pregnancy options is like relying solely on the views espoused by tobacco companies and smokers’ rights groups for a story about whether to take up smoking or not,”

CTV is one of the news stations I regularly tune into. I am beginning to doubt its credibility as a fair news station. This type of 'investigative reporting' that is one-sided, seems to be planted by pro-choice activists to unfairly cast the non-profit crisis pregnancy center into negative light is totally uncalled for. I am disgusted by the lack of transparency on CTV's part with regards to humiliating the workers at the crisis pregnancy center. Come on. The crisis pregnancy center needs to be given sufficient room to present their side of the story. CTV has shamelessly cut and past what CTV wants, promote the short 5-minute clip as if that 5-minutes is ALL that the crisis pregnancy is talking about, and worse, creating hypocrites out of themselves. If CTV is so bent on saying that the crisis pregnancy center concerned is NOT giving women sufficient options, why is CTV not giving normal viewers sufficient options to see BOTH sides of the story. Why not show the full clip of the entire hidden camera footage? Why only the short 5 minutes?

I think CTV owes an explanation to ordinary viewers like me to explain why they are doing what they are doing. The media must not take sides. This investigative reporting appears to show only the Pro-Choice side of the story. Shame on you CTV.

c

How To Focus in an Age of Distraction?

This is a wonderful picture of the challenges and the possible ways to fight distractions.

Credit: MindMapArt.com

Perhaps, the picture itself is highly distracting? You try.

conrade

Excellent Movie: "Courageous" (Coming 30 Sep 2011)

On Monday, by invitation of Outreach Canada, my wife and I attended the pre-screening of the upcoming movie called, "Courageous." It was a private screening of the movie, intended for pastors and ministry leaders in various parts of Canada. The film is scheduled to be released on 30 Sep 2011 in North America. Thus, as a pre-release, I am limited by what I can share on this blog. The following is a snippet from the press release. [Watch trailer here.]

"Courageous, the fourth release from of Sherwood Pictures, the moviemaking ministry of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia, tells the story of four police officers who unite to be as courageous in their homes as they are on the streets. As they grapple with the issue of absentfatherhood and fatherlessness, they decide to turn their hearts toward God and to steer their families to a renewed commitment to Christ in the home." (Movie Press Release, 26-Aug-2011)

The basic conviction of the people behind the movie is the firm belief that fathers are critical to the functioning of a family. Any family.

"Today, fatherlessness in Canada is widespread and its effects are far reaching. Studies show that fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy and criminality. Even in homes where the father is present, he may be struggling with career, life’s purpose or marital issues. Dads are often busy and disconnected. The movie Courageous invites men to make a profound change for the sake of their families, collectively altering the future of our nation as men put into practice what fatherhood should be." (Press release, 26-Aug-2011)

My Thoughts

The movie is first rate, considering the fact that most of the people behind the show are essentially volunteers who could have made more money in Hollywood. Instead, they pour their own money, resources, and time to bring across a message. A message of hope. A message to wake up the world. Though this is a Christian-based film, there are so many practical and relevant messages for ALL families, not just Christian. In fact, I will suggest to everybody, that if the movie brings about a good turn in society at large, where families become more united, more responsible in society, and more active in promoting love and goodwill, why not?

Alex Kendrick and Ken Bevel play shining roles in terms of acting prowess and the professional manner they go about with their performances. I enjoy seeing how they bring to life the difficult emotions they experience. The central theme is fatherhood. Throughout the film, references are made to research that says more than 70% of the crimes committed in America are by those who come from broken families, and fatherless homes. By fatherless, it does not mean physical absence. It also means any kind of absence. Scene after scene, I find it hard to hold back my tears in the many touching scenes. Scenes of grief. Scenes of missed opportunities. Scenes of forgiveness. Scenes of resolution to make the best of whatever that's left. Scenes of standing up for the truth regardless of consequences. Scenes of integrity. Scenes of courage. The movie does such a good job that to me it brings to life essential elements of what commitment is. Commitment to the family, to work colleagues, to integrity, and for Christians, to God.

Scene from the movie: Courageous

I look at the current crop of movies in the market. The current hit, 'Contagion' feeds on fear and spreads fear. The rest works on the usual formula of violence, sex, superheroes, fantasy, while entertaining, do not drive home family values that one can take away. None of them is like 'courageous.'

As I was driving back home after the movie, I asked my wife if we should promote the movie in the Church. She gave me a resounding: YES! That alone is sufficient affirmation for me. Do yourself and your family a favour. Buy tickets for all. Better still, after watching it, let your heart lead you to be a better person, and for fathers, a doubly better father.

My opinion is that if you have money only for two tickets this year, let Courageous be one. The other is to buy a ticket to invite another father you know to watch it. If you are outside US/Canada, just keep a lookout for this movie. Make sure you bring along a box of Kleenex. For you, and also for the ones sitting around you.


Rating: 5 stars of 5.

conrade

Two of my Favourite "Rachel Liang" songs

These 2 songs by Taiwanese rising songstress are my current favourites. She has all the makings of a rising star.

Personally, I like the first one best. It describes the three promises a lover gives. Yet, the most precious are neither of these. It is the gift of one's presence. Consider that. What I find most amazing is that the lyrics display an exchange of hopes between the two lovers. Isn't that what communications are all about? Suspend judgment and simply enjoy.

The second song is nearly the opposite of the first. It reflects a painful relationship that needs to be resolved through crying. It is part of learning to grow up.

1) Three Hopes (Rachel Liang) [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny0r6spg-BY ]

---

2) Cry and It Will be Fine (Rachel Liang) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gQHs-96K4s]




ks

Three Scattered Thoughts on Good Friday

Today is Good Friday. I wake up reflecting on Jesus and thinking about the Cross, the World's continued ignorance of Jesus, and how the Church continues to be under unfair labeling by media.

1) Thinking of Jesus and the Cross
It is a time to remember Jesus being captured, cursed, and crucified at the Cross. As we enter the last week of Lent, that climaxes in Easter Sunday or Resurrection Sunday, it is good to remember the work of Christ. It is important to know where our faith, our Christian belief centers on. It is Jesus. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. It is because of Jesus' willingness to go to the cross, and die for all mankind, that we have hope. The Apostle's Creed says it poignantly, which is a summary and uniting statement for the vast majority of Christian denominations and quarters.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead;

2) Thinking about the World Ignoring the Cross
Good Friday is a significant event for Christians all over the world. I know of some friends who would rather forget Christmas, instead of forgetting Good Friday. It is significant because, it is not Christmas, but Jesus's death on the cross that is the act of dying to give this world a new hope and opportunity to be restored back to God. About 2 billion people in the world have adopted Christianity as their faith, almost a third of the world's population. That is a significant number.

Unfortunately, I feel that many are not willing to take into consideration this number. Take Google for example. As a search company, their algorithms work on the basis of popularity and numbers. The more people links to a particular site, the more 'important' and 'relevant' this information is. On special days, on their plain white background search page, there will be special pictures to commemorate a significant event on the day itself. For example, when the Winter Olympics started, there was this:

Winter Olympics - Feb 20th, 2010

For special days like New Year's Day, it will be like this:

Happy New Year - Jan 1st, 2010

Not Good Friday. While many countries with a Christian presence declare Good Friday a national holiday, the giant search corporations prefers to remember the birthday of Hans Christian Anderson, the story teller. Even Halloween gets to have their icon on Google. Not Good Friday. Not Jesus. It is another example of how the world conveniently ignores Jesus, in favour of other gods.

Good Friday - Apr 2nd, 2010

So Hans Christian Anderson is more significant than Good Friday. Mmmmph. Either someone is a big Hans Christian Anderson fan, or he is plain ignorant of the significance of Good Friday. Come Easter Sunday, what do you think you will see? I think the Easter bunny and the chocolate eggs will dominate the headlines. Again!

3) Thinking of the Church Carrying the Cross
A thought provoking article was written by Dr David Horn of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He has recently returned from some humanitarian projects in New Orleans. He makes a sharp comment asking: "Where is Brad Pitt Now?" When the Katrina crisis first blew over, many people pay attention. The media swarm the place for coverage. People give generously to various agencies to help the hurricane victims. That was back in 2005. Now, about 5 years later, where are the famous movie stars? Where is popular media? What happens to the rebuilding projects that began with so much fanfare?

Not the movie stars. Not the big-time media. All they are doing right now is to look for the latest and the greatest excitement happening in town. Katrina is no longer exciting. Horn further observes that the real people picking up the pieces left behind, the ones who are faithfully and quietly helping are the religious groups, like Churches and many other faith based organizations. Where are the stars? What is the media portraying religions, especially Christianity?

Horn makes a stark contrast of the difference, and the injustice that is inflicted on Christianity.

"Which brings me back to Brad Pitt. Where is he now? One of the unsung songs in the national media, now that the television cameras are gone after five years, is that it is almost solely faith-based organizations—churches, Christian schools, and other religious organizations-- that are still packing their bags and heading down to New Orleans to patch the city back together again. Where did everyone else go? But why should the national media care? They already have their story. And the story is that apparently the church is full of hypocrites who think about little else but heaven." (Horn)

So while the Church continues to pick up the pieces, and be faithful to help in little ways, the mass media in general continues to portray the Church as a bunch of hypocrites only concerned about heaven. What kind of reporting will that become?

conrade

Some Funny Beer Commercials

I don't know why. Some of the funniest commercials happen to be by beer makers. These Canadian commercials are hilarious. #1 is my favourite.

1) Asking For Trouble
Attention world. Canadians are nice, but don't mess with them, like the one below.


2) Pet Beaver
A little bit like #1, though I like #1 better.



3) "Spit it Out"
A little ridiculous. I laugh at the way the actor seem so serious about his beer.


4) "A Canadian visits Vermont"
This is funny.


c

My Top 10 Vancouver 2010 Olympic Videos

They cannot be avoided. Each time I turn on the news, everyone seem to be talking about it. The Olympics are coming to Vancouver BC, Canada. Woo-Hoo!

I am an Olympic fan. After all these years of watching the Olympics on TV, this year, the Olympics are coming to my city! I list the videos below in no particular order. They are all good, that's why they're my favourites. For the fun of it, I thought I can list down some of them, so that I do not have to search for it next time. If the embedded videos do not show up in your browser, just click the title.



(1) "I Believe" Music Video [updated link HD quality HERE!]

This is a nice video, accompanied by a hauntingly beautiful voice of Nikki Yanofsky. The lyrics may not be as great. However, put together the musical rendition and the touching images, this is a winner!

(2) The Wonder-Bread (Commercial by Wonder-Bread)

Children is always fascinating. This video is brilliant for being able to remind us to have fun even in competition. Winning is important, but it is not everything in life.

(3) "You Gotta Be Here" BC Promotional (HelloBC)

This video is impressive for the sheer picturesque images of British Columbia. It makes me proud to be living in BC.

(4) Vancouver 2010 Mascot - Mukmuk

This is delightful. A reminder that of the oft forgotten first nations natives in BC. 'Mukmuk' is derived from the first nations trading language.

(5) "Do You Believe?" (CTV commercial)

This video is wonderful as it brings together the city of Vancouver to welcome the world. It is a heartwarming image that we can all have something in common to believe in.

(6) "All Together Now" - Animated (IOC publicity)

This animated video shows us the meaning of the Olympics. That while everyone competes to win gold, it tells us that unity is the goal.

(7) "One Dream" Music Video (sung by Sarah McLachlan)

Sarah McLachlan's voice is powerful. This rendition is a good companion to Nikki Yanofsky. Personally, I think the lyrics are stronger than "I Believe."


(8) "Let the Games Begin" (narrated by Donald Sutherland)

As the euphoria continues, the "Do You Believe" campaign is certainly becoming such a catchword all over Vancouver that some people gets sick of it. I must say, CTV and others are doing a very effective way to inculcate Olympics awareness. I appreciate the firm and calm voice of Donald Sutherland, that gently peels away a hype-like feeling that usually comes with publicity commercials.


(9) Olympic Pins (CTV commercial)

I include this not because of the video, but for the last momentary question posed by kids: "Do you believe?" For me, that sticks in my head.


(10) "O Canada!" (McDonalds)

This video begins slow. However, be patient and watch the momentum builds up. It's good. It is certainly an uplifting one. Even if Canada does not win gold in any sports, they can win gold in cheering for their athletes. Go! Canada! Go!

conrade

Re-Post: "A Case For Watching (Engaging) More TV"

I reproduce my article here, first published in "Under One Blog," a collaborative blogging project by a group of Regent-College alumni, intent to engage society more actively and more constructively.

---

TITLE: A CASE FOR WATCHING (ENGAGING) MORE TV
AUTHOR: CONRADE YAP
DATE: 22 Jan 2010

Synopsis: Many Christians have consistently condemned the TV to the dungeons of evil. The question is, can we continue to do this? Can we afford to let the evil powers and principalities take over while Christians let them?

I come from a tradition that periodically demonizes the television set. Ugly names are regularly hurled at the helpless rectangular box. Derogatory labels range from ‘Idiot-box,’ ‘boob-tube,’ ‘the box,’ to more sinister ones such as the ‘devil’s chief weapon.’ My first experience with a colour television set was in 1974, where my father bought the new TV just in time for the World Cup Soccer tournament. Watching TV has been a favourite pastime for my family, despite the constant arguments that too much TV dulls the mind. I admit. There are some programs that are simply sick to the core. Others contain too much violence, vulgarity that turn a promising story into another opportunity to display artificial macho-ness. Sometimes I feel the TV lies more than its purported truth. The difference lies in how we read the director’s cut.

The current TV tax law proposal has heightened the animosity between the cable companies and the local networks. Local TV is asking the cable to pay their share for local programming. Cable companies refuse to pay, saying that any money gained by local networks simply means the end-users end up footing the bill. It strikes me as preposterous that each party speaks in such a way that they are ‘right,’ and the other is ‘wrong.’ Regardless of who you watch first, there is a nagging feeling that each of them are equally guilty of telling only their side of the story. Hence, who is correct? Depends on who you watch.

A Change of Heart
Recently I have a change of paradigm. Condemning TV itself is not going to be helpful. Yet, should we be content to tolerate some of those trash on the tube? No. Something more needs to be done. My change of heart stems from three observations. Firstly, despite the rise of the Internet, TV watching is rising, not falling. With the Vancouver Olympics next month, advertisers are gearing up for a sharp surge in viewership, especially on days when Team Canada competes in the Ice-Hockey games. Not only that, movie makers are no longer just dependent on the theatres to bring in the cash to recoup their movie-making investment. Releasing movies on the TV networks is a way to maintain revenue for old movies. For example, the Star Trek series made more money in reruns, despite its miserable returns when it was first released. Secondly, the culture around which my children is growing up in, seems headed toward more visual teaching, especially through videos on the television set. At one time, my kid excitedly comes back telling me that her teacher showed the whole class a full movie, simply because he does not feel like teaching that day. I was initially flabbergasted. However, as I think of my recent engagement with professors specializing in media, they tell me that this is a trend that is likely to increase. Thirdly, I have been asking whether it is more useful to villanize TV or to engage it. After all, TV remains one of the most used devices in any home. Yes, more people watch TV than they read books. For me, I watch more Harry Potter movies than Harry Potter books. I am not suggesting that we join the TV watching revolution simply because we cannot defeat it. I am saying that there is a more constructive way to approach TV. Instead of being passive TV watchers, which certainly dulls one’s mind and creativity, why not engage the TV and to let the producers, the TV media and the advertizers know that we can be a force not to be trifled with?

Beyond 'Viewing'  & Watching: The 7 Habits of TV Engagement
Quentin Schultze argues that there is a difference between ‘watching’ and ‘viewing’ television. The former is ‘passive and largely uncritical’ while the latter ‘requires one to look for the values and beliefs that animate television messages.’ I tend to agree, but feel that we need to move a step further from ‘viewing’ toward engagement.


One of my concerns is that it is not always that easy to make a distinction between ‘watching’ and ‘viewing.’ When my mind is tired, I just want to relax and let the television do all the talking and creating. It is only when I am relatively more awake that I can put on the thinking cap. Having said that, let me propose my idea of a 7-habits in highly Practical Engagement.

1. Advertising (Advertising Base): Write to the advertisers in the offending movie. Address it to “Customer Representative” or “Customer Relations” to state that you will not buy their product because you disagree with the values in the movie. Perhaps, if you write in to the cereal company, the beer or the ice-cream shop, they may even send you a free coupon.

2. Balance (Hear Views Fairly): It is easy to be swayed in a message by any one TV channel. Watch at least two viewpoints. I find the talk shows that gather different viewpoints really helpful, to realize the diversity of views.

3. Compliment (Positive Reinforcement): When a good movie or program is being shown, write an email to the station, or to convey a word of thanks for showing the program. Tell them specifically what are the values that you find should be repeated. You’ll be surprised that this gives producers and TV stations the incentive to look for similar programs in the future.

4. Discerning (Home-base): Every program on TV has a particular plot. Discern what it is, even the advertisements flashed. For parents, use the TV as another ‘parenting moment’ to teach our kids to watch with discernment.

5. Embrace Diversity: In an increasingly global world, choose programs that have a fair representation of as many ethnic groups as possible. I notice a gradual increase of non-white people in TV series such as 24, House, and others. Also be ready to send a message to the producers if you feel a particular show is too biased toward any one race.

6. Feedback (to TV station base): Sometimes, there are good programs that are unfortunately marred by bad language. Feedback to the producers. Tell the studios that you actively disagree with the subliminal message bent on portraying ‘vulgarity’ as reality in life. Just hearing a ‘four-letter’ word uttered does not mean that ALL places accept the vulgar word as a norm.

7. Group: This point is aimed particularly at Christians, especially those of the evangelical camp. Rather than to say that TV is evil, and then hide ourselves in the closet of separateness, it is better to be a visible salt and light to the world, and not allow the free reign of undesirable influences in Hollywood. Remember that when Christians take the movies seriously, Hollywood will learn to take Christians seriously. They need to know that Christians can be a powerful consumer group too.

The English philosopher, Edwin Burke has been widely quoted:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Let me assert that if Christians do nothing about what they see on TV, we risk letting evil control a very powerful media. We risk becoming people who do nothing, except whining and complaining quietly about the world where evil reigns on the TV. May that never happen. Christians can be good citizens and at the same time, be helpful engagers of modern media.



Written by:

Conrade Yap (MDiv, Regent-College)
22 Jan 2010


Notes:
• Schultze, Quentin. "Television." The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity. Eds. R Paul Stevens and Robert Banks. Downers Grove: IVP, 1997. 1025-7.

Movie Review: Avatar

We went to watch the hit movie, Avatar, last night. My kids have been waiting for this day, patiently waiting for me to return from Washington DC so that we can watch the movie together as a family. So I relented. We were not disappointed, though I do have a few concerns about the subtle messages within. There has been many different reviews of the movie. Most of them, including Christian sites have given a thumbs-up on the stunning techno-effects and various enrivonmental themes. One of the best and balanced reviews is from Carl Wieland, entitled "Avatar and the New Evolutionary Religion."

Here are some of my initial thoughts on the movie.

A) Worthy of Applause

• Avatar is a technological marvel. The use of colour, animation, screenplay and special effects are top class.
• Respect the environment. We need to be reminded that we need to use earth's resources wisely, and not to abuse them out of personal greed.
• It is more important to earn trust and respect, than to demand for it.
• Togetherness in Community; the theme of brotherhood and patriotism is strong within the Na'vi people. In particular, when Jake was initiated into the brotherhood, everyone in the community rejoices.
• Strong story-telling from the perspectives of both the military as well as the Na'vi race.
• Sensitive portrayal of the inner conflicts Jake and Grace goes through.

B) Worth Being Careful or Watchful

• The movie seems to teach a form of pantheism, (Pan = 'all'; Theos = 'god.') where all things have a form of energy connecting them to a god. Some call it 'All-is-god' belief. With constant reference to the deity, Eywa that will save the Na’vi people, 
• 'Eywa' is referred to a mother goddess. This is quite similar to pagan beliefs that god is female.
• The movie attempts to paint the military (especially the US military) in a rather negative light. I feel that there should be a more level-headed portrayal, knowing that military might can also be used for humanitarian grounds. (see Haiti relief efforts, where the military is playing a positive role)
• New Age themes and terms are rampant throughout the movie. 
• "Avatar": is a term used for a Hindu deity incarnated into reality. [Answers]
• 'Pandora' refers to a first woman in Greek mythology. [Collins]
• "Na'vi" sounds like the Hebrew word for 'prophet.' When used on the indigenous people, it supports a notion of something growing out of them. On one hand, it could indicate a connection to the calling of the people to 'bubble forth' something in them. On the other, it claims to be the people being a channel for a mysterious energy force flowing through them.
• Animism Theme: Energy Theme is strong, reducing deity to an Energy Force, which is common in many animistic religions. 
• Transference of Life: How the dead spirit in the human body can be transferred to the Na'vi body, using the energy forces sent by the community of people.
• Environmental Theme: This is clearly demonstrating that the earth must be protected from greed and careless destruction. The strong New-Age taste overwhelms the creational aspect of caring.
• We-Are-One Theme: This flows into the New Age thinking that all is connected to a 'god' or higher energy source. 
• Connection Theme:  The Na'vi people is able to connect and control the life-forms they come in contact with. Animals have connection strands to join with the Na'vi tail ends to form a united body.

Summary

In a nutshell, this is a worthwhile movie to watch. At the same time, be watchful of the subtle themes which can infuse new-age beliefs to confuse one's faith. Sometimes, movies that appear to be fictional, but touch on real themes can have a more sinister effect. Moreover, the great story-telling is masterfully done, and young minds can be easily influenced that the world of Na'vi is more real than the world according to the Bible. Even if the movie does not convince us of New Age themes, it has a potential to confuse virtual reality with truth.

With the show garnering top awards at the recent Golden Globes ceremony, Avatar will start to roll off more medals over the coming months, even years. Enjoy the show, but always be watchful of New Age influences that can confuse.

conrade

"How to Share Christ to a Secular Audience?"

This is classic exhortation on stage. If our worship can be filled with lifting Christ up like this, it will be phenomenal. Interesting to note that the audience here is largely non-religious, or secular. The speaker, Steve Harvey is a comedian! Though I believe there are Christian believers in the audience, the whole context is not religious in any way. Thanks Cheryl for the link.

(Link)



conrade

A New Vision of Christmas

If you cannot see the embedded image below, click here.

conrade

"Happy Holidays" vs "Merry Christmas"

Nowadays in the West, many people are wishing one another "Happy Holidays" during the Christmas season. Atheists are proud about it. Many Christians frown on it. Others simply do not mind any. Here is a provocative post entitled "Happy Holidays will do nicely" from one of my Regent professors, published in Canada's National Post. It argues that "Happy Holidays" should be preferred especially when most of Canada is secular and multicultural. It implicitly assumes that people will be more offended if religious words like 'Christmas' is used.

The positive aspect of the article is that it reflects rather plainly the current cultural sentiment about de-Christianizing the Christmas event. Many people no longer attend churches. Even Christians are shunning Sunday services in droves, especially when they no longer feel 'ministered' to or its message 'relevant' to their needs. The traditional church is shrinking rapidly. Being Canadian is increasingly similar to being 'secular' and multicultural. Yet, I choose to differ politely from my Professor's view with two comments. The first lies with the importance of history and tradition. The second has to do with sense and sensibility to all.

Firstly, it does not mean one has to be Christian in order to use the word 'Christmas.' In any multicultural society, being sensitive to one another's faith belief is important. This does not mean silencing one's heritage. Yet, I do not believe that simply wishing "Merry Christmas" makes the occasion more 'religious' especially in a land where the forefathers are Christians. Moreover, I scratch my head to find out how offensive is the word 'Christmas?' It is a historical event. Tradition is an important source of identity. Lose it, and we spin further away downward the ever confusing spiral called: "Identity Crisis." On this very same argument, I know of some people who do not like the word 'Santa Claus.' In other words, this argument works both ways. Non-believers insisting on removal of words like 'Christmas' should also be sensitive to people who want to remove 'Santa Claus.'

Secondly, the word 'holiday' has a religious word called 'holy' in it. If one insists on removing religious words like 'Christ' from Christmas, why should they spare the 'holy' from 'holidays?' Why not simply blurt our "Happy ___days!" Soon, people's names will be next. Don't name your sons 'Peter' because it is from the Bible. Similarly, avoid 'Mary' in naming any of the toys you buy. Sigh. This kind of removing religious words for the sake of being non-religious will make our society a silly one. For those who insist on 'Happy Holidays' let me say to them, are you 'religious' about it in your insistence? Any atheist who insist on removing 'Christ' from Christmas should not insist that Christians do the same. If this silly game of removing words is allowed to rule our basic sense and sensibility, soon we will be living in a graceless (even wordless) society where every single word has to be censored from society as long as they 'offend.'

• "Holiday Carols" instead of Christmas carols;
• Even Christmas carols will have the words 'Jesus,' 'Christ,' 'God; removed;
• All road names with religious words removed;
• .......
  

My view is, live and let live. Be open to both usages according to how people want to use it. Those who forgets tradition forgets a whole lot more than brain memory. A multicultural society must be open to all preferences, both non-Christians AND Christians. Unless of course, there are no more Christian believers at all in Canada. May that day never happen. Professor Stackhouse's post is like an intellectual pudding. If you like it, you'll want another piece. If not, perhaps just one slice is enough.

It is not everyday that we wish one another Merry Christmas, but every non-work day can be a holiday. In conclusion, if an alien from outer space were to come to us on Christmas Day, and we wish it "Happy Holidays," what are we going to do when it asks: "Which one?" Let me say that at the end of it all, we still have to use the word 'Christmas.'

Have a Blessed Christmas!

conrade

Top 5 Technological Time-Wasters

Five Biggest Time-Wasters in a Technological Era

Technology is helpful, even needful. Yet, frequently it can be a regrettable case of minutes-wise-hours-foolish.... Technology saves time wonderfully. Too much technology wastes time absolutely.

Time and tide waits for no man. Time past is never to be recovered. A stitch in time saves nine. There are lots of proverbs surrounding time. We look at our watches daily, to keep track of our schedules and appointments. We browse our calendars and our digital devices to make sure we are ahead of time. Many commercials highlight 'saving' time so that we can spend it on more 'worthwhile' activities. I saw a bank commercial the other day, that simply by banking with them, we can shave off precious minutes in our banking so that we can channel them to our other activities. Like 'penny wise pound foolish,' the technological equivalent is 'minutes-wise-hours-foolish.' Our human tendency is to squander seconds saved, into meaningless hours doing other stuff. This is not helped with the bulging technology options available to the unsuspecting user.

In our modern technological age, it is easy to waste our precious time by random and aimless electronic surfing. It can be randomly searching out cable channels with our TV remote control. It can be aimless surfing of various Internet websites. It can be compulsive checking of email, to see if people has responded to our queries. It can be continuously 'liking' and 'commenting' on visual notifications on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. It can also be addictive playing of electronic games, increasingly made free of charge to any connected Internet user.

Source of Time-Wasting: The Restlessness DNA
The crux of the matter is, many of us tend to be fidgety and easily distracted. We inherit a restless DNA similar to the one possessed by the first murderer in world history: Cain. It is this restlessness that makes us easily distracted, deceived, and even dangerous. Think attention seeking. Think fame lusting. Think sex predators online. It is known that lonely people can become potential online prowlers scavenging for innocent young victims. It is restlessness that tempts one to try new things that are unorthodox, like illegal drugs. It is restlessness that entices one to leave their islands of holy contentment toward uncharted territories of unholy temptations. It is restlessness that deceives us into always assuming that when nothing is happening, something is wrong.

I remember during my training as a power engineer, my professor told us a story about a young professional engineer left to man the control room one day. It was one of the most forgettable days ever for that young rookie. On a typical day, assumed to be serene and normally quiet, the control lights in the room start flashing for attention. The sounds of the alarm is not just audible. Mixed with panic and uncertainty, it turns deafening. Without the presence of an experienced engineer, the young man feels lost and does the only thing in his mind: Call his supervisor. After several rings, the sleepy voice on the other side sounds like a guardian angel. The supervisor said: “You should do nothing.” True enough, after a few minutes, the systems automatically corrected itself and there was peace on earth and goodwill overflowing from the four-chambered heart of that young man, with sighs of relief bubbling out of his nostrils and ears.

Unfortunately, too many people have fallen prey to their restless inside, to participate in all kinds of activities outside, even meaningless ones. This brings me to the 5 main time-wasters of the technological era. It is because of our constant restlessness inside us, that we are easy pickings for these 5 time wasters. It is hoped that by sharing these, I can encourage more people to be aware that sometimes, 'doing nothing' is a good thing.

Here's the list of my top 5 time-wasters.

A Comment on the New Disney Movie

I love this post by Wesley Lowe, a film producer specializing in inculcating more Asian content in a media industry dominated by white-only. This post is brilliant especially this quote:

affirmative action is much better than what we have now – “unaffirmative inaction.”

In the current hit, the The Princess and the Frog, Disney decides to cast a 'black' as the heroine. From the many cartoon movies so far, this is unprecedented. This is especially when the original author of the fable is writing to a largely white readership base. Again, I have a small critique. Asians HAS been represented in cartoons. Think Mu Lan.

I know that cartoons such as MuLan already has a Chinese face to the lead figure. Yet, I concede that the context is that the story is written by a Chinese author, and the name itself is very Chinese.

Finally, my response to Lowe's post is not simply agreeing for a more ethnically diverse representation in Hollywood. I am also hoping that the day will come, whether white, black, Hispanic, Asian or whatever ethnicity, people will see each and everyone equal.

You can read Lowe's excellent comment here.
conrade

Musings on "Cardus - Whither Democracy 2.0?"

This blog post is partly to test out the new comment-share button the contributor, Rosie Perera has put in her Comment website.   I had thought it will paste the entire article on this blog. Alas! It only places the subject heading and the link is embedded within. You can read the full article by clicking the link below.

 Cardus - Whither Democracy 2.0?

My Comments
Using the popular technological term Web 2.0, the author argues that the concept of democracy in government is, like technology, tends to be more neutral. Its pros and cons depend on how we use it.  Using various studies and bibliography to back up her observations, she poses interesting parallels between technology and government, as well as how technology is shaping the voting patterns of tomorrow. Some uses like 'armchair activism' are largely 'ineffective.'

I like the way the author puts it, saying "The Internet is a megaphone for extremism." I agree. In fact, for people who has said that the Internet has made more information freely available, I will also say that it has facilitated another kind of 'extremism.' One of my biggest concerns is that the Internet is one that not only makes information more readily available, it allows one an easier and quicker way to look for views that AGREE with one's perspective. In other words, a bigot can easily search for support on the Internet and band together many groups of people who think the same way. Is that 'Democracy' or is it more a rallying cry. That said, political activists can readily harness the power of the Internet to fill up their supporter ranks. The danger is that one may no longer care for truth per se, but accumulates anything or anyone who is willing to sing the same song or to toe the same line. 


Toward the end, the author poses 4 excellent pointers on how to participate profitably in Democracy 2.0, lest it withers by the wayside. Be well-informed, be aware of the sources, be thoughtful prior to sending, and be 'reflective and prayerful.' Those are truly important factors that needs to be adhered to. I agree with them, but would like to add one more, which I call the 'enabler' of these four pointers. (sorry Rosie, I'm trying to steal your thunder). Before I go to that, let me offer just one critique even though I have a few more (only one, a tiny one, as I treasure my friendship with the author).

Here goes.... The four pointers are not exactly for 'Christians' only. Perhaps the fourth one is more relevant, but even then, I believe the article is for everyone who goes online. After all, we are not talking about a democracy within a theocratic society. We are trying to practice a democracy within an increasingly 'secular' setting. That said, if the author could modify this, it could mean a wider readership base.

'Enabler' of the Four Excellent Pointers
From my experience, there is one cavaet before we can make these happen. We must learn to bide our time. In an Internet age, we get quite testy when people do not respond quickly to our emails, thinking that we are ignored intentionally. That calls for humility to give the other persons the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they are busy. Maybe they are caught up with something else more important. Maybe my mail gets slipped into the spam box accidentally. Maybe the recipient is very sick and so on.

The converse is equally true. As much as we expect quick response from people, we must take care not to be too hasty with a trigger-happy keyboard response, letting our fingers work faster than our heads and hearts. This has caused some people who responded sooner, only to regret their mails later.  I remember that GMAIL has recently provided an email facility to UNSEND one's email.

My point is, timing is key whenever we work in a technological age. We need to be patient, and to approach matters with a loving heart. The virtues of patience and love are like seeds that grow on good soil They require the element of time. The author's last pointer comes closest to my 'enabler.' We need time to be prayerful and reflective. Not too fast, not too slow but just right. Otherwise, 'Anything 2.0' will wither in a matter of time.

conrade

Downside of Multitasking

Here is another research that points to the downside of multi-tasking. Essentially, the big conclusion is that 'media multitaskers' perform worse when they switch from task to task due to their lack of concentration as they multi-task from one activity to another. The study, led by researchers from Stanford University points out several interesting findings. I have added in sub-phrases (underlined) to aid understanding:

1. Diminishing Returns: "the more media people use the worse they are at using any media." [My comment: Better know the limits of our multitasking]
2. Myth of Better Productivity: "The researchers thought people who do a lot of multitasking would be better at it. "But they're not. They're worse. They're much worse," "They couldn't ignore stuff that doesn't matter. They love stuff that doesn't matter," [My comment: Do not deceive ourselves that a few mediocre tasks are better than one excellent job.]
3. Constant Distraction: "They couldn't help thinking about the task they weren't doing," lead author Eyal Ophir said. "The high multitaskers are always drawing from all the information in front of them. They can't keep things separate in their minds." [My comment: beware that distraction can grow to affect our relationships too.]
4. Information Accumulation-Driven: "High multitaskers just love more and more information. Their greatest thrill is to get more," [My comment: Aaah. This may be the key to knowing at what point multitasking becomes unhelpful.]

The four points above show the downside of multi-tasking which can be added to my previous observation about the multi-tasking phenomena that seems to be picking up speed in any culture of discontent. You can read my 2007 article entitled "Taking Multi-tasking to task" by clicking the link here.

My Comments

Since the finding was presented at the Proceedings at the National Academy of Sciences (www.pnas.org), it has generated some lively debate. I guess many who object to it cannot accept the results without a vigorous fight. More importantly, it presents a dilemma to those who deem multi-tasking work as absolutely essential to survive in our present age. Without dwelling on the details of the merits or demerits of multi-tasking, I think some wisdom is always needed. The paranoid multi-tasker has to realize his/her limits. This study will be helpful to prevent such perennial life-jugglers from thinking that the solution to every problem is via multi-tasking. Such an attitude will eventually lead to a crash. Remember how a computer slows down or deteriorates in performance when it opens too many windows and processes?

On the other hand, if we fail to optimize the use of our time, it can be a waste of resources. For example, if we are preparing to go to work, brewing coffee and checking the weather report, getting our kids ready for school, and insist on finishing one task before the next, we'll probably be late for work. Our kids will have another late slip from the school principal.

Multi-tasking is something that is a part of our life. I think we can manage our lives better when we understand ourselves and our idiosyncrasies clearer. In other words, it is not multi-tasking or the external circumstances that define our personality and our achievements. It is the reverse. Based on our knowledge of personal strengths and weaknesses, we plan the essential tasks based on what is essential, and what is not. Based on our understanding of the needed resources of our projects, we arrange the requirements accordingly, instead of blindly copying or following others. The main lesson in the Stanford research which I feel is useful is this: It is not the multi-tasking that defines the person. Rather it is the person that ought to plan and do tasks that is consistent with the planned objectives, the available resources and a keen awareness of one's potential as well as limits.

Multi-task, but do it with wisdom and understanding.

ks

"World's Strictest Parents" (Alabama)

There are many reality TV shows. Some has excellent educational value in it for families. For every successful product, I wonder how many others failed. While I remain skeptical about the Reality TV genre, "World's Strictest Parents" does speak into a cultural need surrounding the challenges of parenting rebellious teenager.

One of the latest ideas in Reality TV is dealing with hard-to-handle teenagers. Thus the idea is born, whether these teen challenges can survive in an environment created by "World's Strictest Parents." This first episode contains a strong message in that teens and strict control sometimes do work out well.

---

I attach the links to the Youtube videos below (in 6 parts).

1. Part 1 of 6 (link)
   
2. Part 2 of 6 (link)
   
3. Part 3 of 6 (link)
   
4. Part 4 of 6 (link)
   
5. Part 5 of 6 (link)
   
6. Part 6 of 6 (link)

---

My Reflections
Some positive take-aways:

• INTEGRITY: Practice What You Preach. The Garnett family in Alabama puts into practice their core beliefs. They do not shirk away from their responsibilites to educate, to teach, affirm good deeds and reprimand fairly bad behavior.
• INTERNET: Ross, one of the teens is an avid Internet user. His own lifestyle of using the computer non-stop throughout the day led him to do all kinds of online activities, like finding intimacy with strangers on the net. Undoubtedly, this is one of the biggest causes of his rude attitude toward his own parents.
• SETTING EXPECTATIONS: I am intrigued at the way that the host dad, Mark ensures that his expectations are clearly understood. He even gives the two teenagers time and double opportunity to ensure that their personal belongings adhere to the strict standards.
• ENFORCEMENT: A rule is useless unless it is adequately enforced.
• ENVIRONMENT: Without a supporting community, it is tough. Look at like how the organizers at the Homeless volunteer site reinforce the parents' expectations. A community that works in tandem with parental education reinforces one another in sending a common message.
• ENGAGE IN COMMUNITY WORK: One of the key things to deal with teenagers is how to translate their bursting life and energy into some productive and meaningful work.
• PUNISHMENT: Naomi and Ross learns that some of the things they do, have consequences that affect others negatively.
• CREDIT/DEBIT: Maintain a fair and just admonishment and encouragement posture. Give credit or verbally reprimand in an appropriate way.

Some Reservations

• SUSTAINABLE?: The immediate change in behavior of Ross and Naomi, after a strict week-long stint with the Garretts is commendable. However, are they sustainable? Will Ross and Naomi revert back to their previous ill-behavior when the environment they return did not change?
• SELECTIVE COVERAGE: No matter what they say, anything on TV cannot be believed 100%. This is because we are only seeing the whole episode from the perspective of the producer and cameraman. Surely, the Garretts have their set of challenges which can help TV viewers to appreciate their humanness as well? Selective coverage is like putting make-up on a normal face, hiding the pimples and dark eye rings behind expensive cosmetics.
• IDEALISTIC?: Some people may accuse the series as being overly idealistic, and the Garrett environment is more of an exception rather than the norm. Surely, their methods cannot be easily duplicated by mere methods alone.
• STATISTICS: How portable can such parenting methods be? Are there statistics to support the claim that these methods can work over the long run? In other words, I am keen to know how many families were rejected in the auditioning process.
• CONTEXT: Psychologically speaking, people behave much better in front of the camera. It is often what goes behind the TV lens that shows up the true being and nature.
• CULTURE: What about a pluralistic culture, where there is a complex array of philosophies, beliefs, self-rights and various expectations of parents and teens?
• NATURE/NURTURE: The series is geared toward the 'nurture' side of the perennial tug-of-war between nature and nurture. Little is said about the 'nature' side of the teens.

I think the most powerful reason why the Garretts are able to successfully bring up their own kids (as well as the 1-week lesson with Naomi and Ross) is because they are supported by an environment (75% Bible believers, common understanding of discipline, non-profanity, sustained and consistent approach to correction and prise). This reminds me of Hilary Clinton's book: "It Takes a Village" which proposes that a child grows best within an environment that comprises places both inside and outside the family walls. Picking up on this idea, Tod Bolsinger presents a version suited for Christians called: "It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian: How the Community of God Transforms Live." Maybe, the best thing the series has done is to recognize openly that parenting is difficult, and we should not worry about doing it alone. While the challenges are formidable, it is possible that one can raise up their kids well. Perhaps, we should indeed pray more fervently, that the day will come, where God's will be done both in heaven as well as on earth. When that happens, not only the angels rejoice. We do too. Let's build community.

ks