Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age

As mentioned in the prior post, I became aware of Ms. Crawford’s book recently when I caught part of Moyers & Company where she was interviewed.  It was a fascinating dialogue and I look forward to reading her book. 

 

To begin, I think Ms. Crawford’s title is fascinating.  The concept of a new gilded age with monopolies, dramatic disparities in standard of living, and unfettered power of the rich is one that seems to be discussed more and more in recent years. I will elaborate on that concept in a coming post.

 

However, beyond references to a “new gilded age,” Ms. Crawford several raises interesting points.  She notes the monopoly that internet and cell phone carriers enjoy.  She describes the economic disincentives such monopolies create to upgrade the existing infrastructures to give us all faster, more reliable services. She compares internet and cell phone service to traditional utilities to argue for more government involvement to ensure more widespread access to these services that have become so important to modern life. 

 

Ms. Crawford observes that the United States really helped create these modern communication technologies, but through complacency and governmental neglect, we as a country have really fallen behind.  She gives specific information of how other industrialized countries have made internet and cell phone access an infrastructure priority.  Such countries recognize that cheaper, faster, widespread access is critical to economic development.  We thus risk falling behind in terms of economic development because we don’t have such infrastructure.

 

Moreover, beyond economic issues, Ms. Crawford also makes a good argument that such access is also becoming critical to a functioning democracy since technology has become more the norm for modern communication.  She points out that those who don’t have access to those communication media are shut out of participation in civic discourse.

 

 

 

 

Luke 9:46-48

 

They started arguing over which of them would be most famous. When Jesus realized how much this mattered to them, he brought a child to his side. “Whoever accepts this child as if the child were me, accepts me,” he said. “And whoever accepts me, accepts the One who sent me. You become great by accepting, not asserting. Your spirit, not your size, makes the difference.”

 

 

 

 

Technology and Poor Kids

Another concern I have about the role of technology in our modern communications is quite distinct.  As many have noted, there is a growing technological divide based on socioeconomic status in this country. 

 

The affluent have all kinds of gadgets.  They are deeply enmeshed in electronic communication.  But the less affluent are not.  If technological communication is the new norm in how we interact in our professional and civic lives, then the poor are at a huge disadvantage in terms of professional attainment and participation in civic discourse.

 

I had heard about this problem for well over a decade, but it started to become less abstract to me over the years as I have worked with at-risk teens in various ministries and nonprofits.  In various contexts, I have seen a pattern.  One reason these teens were labeled as “at-risk” to end up in these programs was that they had stolen cell phones or smart phones, or they had appropriated such devices that the owners had lost.  They were considered to have engaged in various forms of theft, a criminal activity.

 

Let me acknowledge that in the base case I don’t tend to have a lot of sympathy for theft of non-essential items.  In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean stole bread to feed hungry children.  Inspector Javert is relentlessly unforgiving, but most readers (or members of the audience) believe Javert’s heartless approach is not deserved or appropriate.  I too appreciate the desperation of a man trying to feed starving children.

 

But when we are taking about non-essentials like electronics, I just don’t understand.  I have been a victim of property crimes at different points in my life.  It is not fun.  It is not fair.  When you don’t have a whole lot, it is particularly tough when what you do have is stolen.  It is easier for me to sympathize with the victim rather than the perpetrator of property crimes.

 

Perhaps I’m hard-hearted, but I have not been inclined to be sympathetic when the teens I’ve met have stolen or misappropriated the cell phones or smart phones of others.  But I’ve worked with so many teens who have engaged in such behavior that I’ve at least become aware that it is not an uncommon phenomenon.  And I’ve tried to understand the mindset and the emotional difficulties of a teen who would engage in such activities.  I have listened to their perspective.  It is not easy for me to understand, but I try. 

 

It has to be acknowledged that the teens with whom I’ve worked have been from economically deprived families.  These are not kids from affluent families taking someone else’s cell phone or smart phone though they have access to one through legitimate means.  Instead, these are kids who live in cramped, ugly apartments.  Their parents have dead-end jobs or are unemployed.  There is not always food in the house.  Health care is available only if the state budget guidelines are inclusive enough.  In these households, luxuries like electronics are non-existent.  On some level, I can conceptualize that it is tough to not have the ability to text or e-mail or get information from the web when it feels like everyone else in our society has that ability.

 

Recently, I caught the tail end of a program Bill Moyers did on this issue of the high price of access to mobile phone and internet.  Mr. Moyers interviewed Susan Crawford who had been a special assistant to President Obama for science, technology and innovation.  She has written a book: Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age.  The interview is accessible at the link below

 

http://billmoyers.com/segment/susan-crawford-on-why-u-s-internet-access-is-slow-costly-and-unfair/

 

In the next few posts, I will discuss some thoughts about Ms. Crawford’s ideas.

 

 

Matthew 7:11

As bad as you are, you know how to give good things to your children. How much more, then, will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

 

Technology and Relationships

A related, but separate issue is the role of technology.  So many people today spend so much time interacting with other humans via various electronic devices, that face-to-face interaction is becoming a lost skill.  I recently heard an interesting radio program that covered that issue:  http://www.npr.org/2013/02/10/171490660/we-need-to-talk-missed-connections-with-hyper-connectivity.

 

Professor Sherry Turkle of MIT described how communications in even familial relationships are “truncating” and becoming “briefer and briefer.”  She notes that relying on such electronic communications has benefits, but fails to allow us “to experience the humanity” of our relationships.  Technology makes relationships “less messy” because electronic communication is “less involved” thanks face to face or even telephone communication.

 

The same program looked at the impact of electronic communication from the perspective of families:  http://www.npr.org/2013/02/10/171598750/raising-personable-children-even-if-theyre-glued-to-phones.

 

One apparently affluent, tech savvy family was studied.  The parents described the biggest challenge as being that they had to make sure “that our kids still interact with each other, and articulate in conversations with adults.”  They had concerns about an older son who didn’t necessarily know to make eye contact on job interviews.  During the journalist’s interview with the family, they were apparently not even all paying attention to the interviewer.  The dad was channel surfing and one son was texting.

 

Such trends worry me greatly.  In my experience, they are not aberrational.  As a parent myself, I would really like to raise children who have deep and meaningful relationships, who are intimately connected to the world around them, and who can interact with (and minister to) others who are experiencing pain.   When Jesus walked this planet, he spent a lot of time developing deep relationships with those around him.  He got to know them intimately.  That seemed to be important to his ministry.  Truncating communication without being face-to-face and looking people in the eye would not seem to hit the mark.

 

 

John 11:33-36

 Jesus saw her weeping, and he saw how the people with her were weeping also; his heart was touched, and he was deeply moved.  “Where have you buried him?” he asked them.

“Come and see, Lord,” they answered.

Jesus wept. “See how much he loved him!” the people said.

Europeans and Gender Equality Part III

Recently, I came across an interesting article relevant to the themes in recent posts.  The link below pulls up an article about male attitudes in France towards women.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/french-government-anti-sexism-lessons-17597856

The article describes how deeply ingrained sexist attitudes are in French culture.  Even in elite circles of well-educated men who should know better, and in circles of Socialist men who purport to value equality, women are viewed in sexualized, condescending terms.  Women are viewed as sex objects first and foremost.  Other potential contributions are secondary at best.  Incredible in this day and age.

The article focuses on sexualization as evidenced by members of the French government, but I don’t believe this is in any way a phenomenon only exhibited by politicians. 

I first began studying the French language when I was in 7^th grade and ultimately it was one of my undergraduate majors.  To improve my language skills and learn more about French culture, for years, I would watch French films whenever I could.  One thing I noticed over the years was that it was apparently mandatory that the leading actress appear topless at some point in every film.  It didn’t matter the type of film.  It could be a period piece about fictional characters or people from history that took place decades or centuries ago, or a modern drama, but at some point we had to see some female breasts on the screen. 

And there didn’t always seem to be a reason for it.  I remember one film where a very respected actress stood in front of her closet naked for several moments before choosing an outfit and getting dressed.  It was silly.  Isabelle Huppert, Nathalie Baye, Isabelle Adjani—no matter how impressive an actress was the star of the film, she was apparently always required to strip for the cameras.  Funny but the same was not also demanded of the male actors.  Indeed, I watched a lot of French films over the years, but I don’t remember seeing the men naked much.  Perhaps seeing Gerard Depardieu in the buff is not a big box office draw.

When I lived in France, I was stunned to discover that what Americans would label “pornography” was broadcast on French media.  As a student and au pair, I was pretty busy during the day and early evenings.  But I’d get some time to myself after I had cleaned up from dinner and the kids went to bed.  At such times, I’d listen to the radio with earphones while writing letters or doing homework in my room.  I listened to various radio stations but particularly those with pop music.  On one such station, sometimes the music was interrupted by a woman talking for prolonged periods.  Typically I was multitasking and the radio was background noise, so initially I didn’t pay much attention to this woman talking.  When I listened to the radio at that hour, I wanted to hear some good music, not someone talking.  And obviously she was speaking in French.  My language skills were still improving, but I would have had to really concentrate to be able to follow her message. 

At first, when this woman would speak I thought it was just the DJ and they’d return to music before long.  But then I noticed the music breaks were fairly long, and one night instead of flipping to another music station, I listened to try to figure out what she was saying.  When I did, I realized she was telling a story.  Ok, that was odd.  Interrupt music to tell a story.  Hmmmm.   

And the story wasn’t particularly gripping.  It was something mundane about a young man taking his new 14 year old girlfriend home to meet his parents for the weekend.  After a few minutes, the station would go back to the music, but later the same woman would come back on air to tell more of the same dumb story. 

This woman had a very distinctive voice and she spoke in an odd way.  I’m not sure how to describe it, but she was clearly trying to sound sexy and alluring.  I’m not sure how to explain what I mean, but trust me on this. 

Bits and pieces of the story interrupted the music over several hours.  It went on and on like that but towards the end, the story became more and more sexual.  Towards the end of the evening, it was extremely graphic.  I was shocked.  I wasn’t staying up particularly late.  Kids could be listening.  And even without the issue of kids, why would this be socially acceptable to broadcast over the radio the telling of a story with an obviously prurient aim?! 

My French family didn’t have cable and rarely watched TV.  That was fine by me.  French TV is not that good anyhow.  At one point towards the end of my time with them, they loaned me a small old TV to keep in my room.  Because the family’s main TV was right by where the babies slept, no one could watch it once they went down for the night.  The little TV they gave me for my room didn’t get good reception, so I didn’t watch it much. 

But one night I couldn’t sleep and turned it on to see if there might be anything worth watching.  Maybe a French David Letterman or something.  Indeed, I stumbled upon some sort of a comedy show.  But it didn’t take long to figure out the comedy was highly sexualized.  It was really graphic.  And at one point there was some female nudity that seemed to serve no real purpose. 

Again, I was horrified.  This show was borderline pornographic.  This was just being broadcast across the airwaves.  I guess most kids were asleep at that hour.  But why was it socially acceptable to air such filth?  The show seemed to be scripted by a couple of junior high boys going through puberty.  How did this get produced?

Europe has become increasingly secular over the years.  When I lived in France, it was depressing.  Churches were dead places.  They were typically these large, old, decaying structures.  Services were infrequent and sparsely attended.  Often I was the only person under the age of 60 to attend.

As an American and as a Christian, I cannot help but wonder if this rampant sexualization of women is at least in part a reflection of the secular culture of Europe.  Maybe I’m wrong.  But if you don’t see women as children of God created with inherent value and purpose—beyond simply sexual pleasure—then perhaps it is easy to be dismissive of them and to treat them in such a disrespectful manner. 

Indeed, if one's worldview informs that there is nothing worthwhile in this life but the pursuit of pleasure, it makes sense to me that prurient media would be common place.  Further, in a society dominated by men, it makes particular sense that the images of women in the media would be so sexualized.

What a sad state of affairs.

 

 

1 Peter 3:3

Wives must not let their beauty be something external. Beauty doesn’t come from hairstyles, gold jewelry, or clothes.

 

Felicity Huffman on Societal Expectations on Motherhood

As a follow up to the prior post, I wanted to explore a bit more our society's expectations with regard to women's attitudes towards motherhood.

I myself really love, love, LOVE being a mom. If I had my way, my husband and I would adopt a dozen kids. Kids are just amazing to me. Being a mom is such a beautiful experience. I get teary eyed at those P&G commercials celebrating motherhood. Because I'm so enthusiastic about my role as a parent, I fit the societal expectations we have about moms. 


If you are a mom, per society’s expectations that role is supposed to be the center of your being and a spiritual experience like no other. I may not live up to most traditional societal expectations of women, but I do meet that one! But does that make me a superior person? Of course not. It is simply a matter of my passion lining up with societal preconceptions for my gender. Lucky me.

But I’m very cognizant that not all women live up to such societal expectations. However, I had never really thought about the existence of such expectations until I heard an interview with actress Felicity Huffman on 60 Minutes in 2006.

For those who are unfamiliar, Ms. Huffman played the character “Lynette” on Desperate Housewives. Her character was beloved by many because Lynette was a mother of a bunch of kids, but she was no June Cleaver. 

Lynette was a brilliant woman whose career meant a lot to her. She made a lot of mistakes as a mom and didn’t always spend much time parenting them. Her kids were a mess at times. She was not always thrilled to be pregnant and adding to her clan. One famous scene from the series involved Lynette in the waiting room at the OB-GYN’s office during her umpteenth pregnancy. Her blunt words to a dreamy-eyed first time mom were seen as honest by some, cynical by others. Regardless, in that famous scene, Lynette scares the heck out of the new mom who has just had her rose colored glasses removed.

In the 2006 interview, Ms. Huffman is asked by Lesley Stahl about whether motherhood is the best experience in her life. Ms. Huffman replied, “"No, no, and I resent that question, because I think it puts women in an untenable position, because unless I say to you, 'Oh, Lesley, it's the best thing I've ever done with my whole life,' I'm considered a bad mother. And just when I said no you, you went back."

The rest of the interview was insightful too, but consider this quote.  Lesley Stahl, another famous working mom, had apparently shown a negative physical reaction and literally was taken aback when Ms. Huffman said motherhood was not the best experience in her life. Clearly, this was not the expected response! I had never thought about it before this interview, but we expect women to just talk about how wonderful parenthood is and we think badly of them if they don’t think parenting is the best thing ever.

I agree with Ms. Huffman that even the question puts women in an “untenable position.” Socially, they have no option but to answer in the affirmative. So it takes real guts to do otherwise. It is also very honest to do so. To even recognize that in oneself, I think takes a lot of honest self-reflection. Many may not want to admit they enjoy or get more fulfillment out of something else. That is not what women are supposed to say. They are supposed to love being mommies. Even to the exclusion of other activities.

I really do love being a mommy. Cleaning up puke and diapers is not so hot. But I have to admit my husband has done more of that than me, so I’ve had it a bit easier in that area.   It is hardly glamourous to do the hard work of disciplining kids and not being a perennial Santa Claus. But I do find being with and raising children to be a terrific experience. I am amazed at how they grow and develop. I find it amazing to look at my kids now and think back to all the milestones they have achieved already. It wasn’t that long ago they were not too verbal and getting to the potty in time was a real challenge. Now they express their ideas (sometimes with fairly sophisticated words), read books (some without pictures), fold laundry and chop vegetables. Before long they’ll be driving and voting. How exciting to get a front seat to all of this and hopefully have some influence in the amazing people they are becoming.

But again, I do not think that these attitudes make me a more noble person than someone who is not as gung ho on kids and parenting. God endows each of us with talents, he puts different dreams in our hearts. We need to respect that individuality. Not all women are the same. Having a vagina doesn’t ipso facto mean that you’re going to love children or be a good parent. I’ve known amazing women who followed their calling in ways that didn’t involve motherhood. I’ve known women who just didn’t know how to relate to kids. That is ok. That doesn’t indicate a character flaw. It is not a sign of immorality. Parenthood is not their calling, their gifts lie elsewhere. We have to remember that and not impose a one size fits all preconception that not all women can satisfy.

 

Romans 11:29

 

God’s gifts and calling can’t be taken back.

Blaming Women?

The article below caught my attention because of the title: “Do Women Have Themselves to Blame for Work-Family Imbalances?”  The article is available at the following link:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/women-themselves-blame-family-imbalances-104931839.html

Because of my growing understanding of the issues involved, I now realize how much guilt women carry when they are both moms and work outside the home.  They are trying to live up to a paradigm that is impossible to meet.  But instead of support and understanding, most of society gives them judgment and condemnation.  The concept of blaming women for the issues involved with balancing work and family really touched a nerve with me.

But the interview wasn’t really about that.  The title was misleading.  Instead, the women interviewed (i.e., several high-profile women who report for ABC news) hit several of the points I’ve been raising in recent blog posts.  Amy Walter noted that women carry a lot of guilt for trying to balance work and family.  She also noted that successful balancing is dependent on “flexibility and a supportive spouse.”  The interview is worth a quick read.

 

Romans 8:13
If you live on the basis of selfishness, you are going to die. But if you put to death the actions of the body with the Spirit, you will live.

Fathers’ Grief and Service

I ran across another pertinent article from ABC’s Nightline.  It was about two fathers, who are honoring their deceased children’s memories by serving the people of Haiti.  The article is available at the following link:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/grieving-fathers-rebuild-haiti-deceased-childrens-honor/story?id=16562261

I love this article!  It got me misty-eyed.  I cannot imagine a worse grief than a parent who has lost achild.  But what a productive, loving expression of grief to help others in God’s family.

Genesis 41:52
Joseph named his second son Ephraim, for he said, “God has made me fruitful in this land of my grief.”

Job 16:5
But if it were me, I would encourage you. I would try to take away your grief.

Attitudes Towards “Stay-At-Home Fathers”

The link below is from American Public Media’s “Marketplace” program.  It is entitled “Rock, paper, income: The life of a stay-at-home dad.”

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/rock-paper-income-life-stay-home-dad

I didn’t have any deep thoughts to share from listening to the interview.  I simply enjoy hearing about dedicated fathers.  I hope you enjoy it too.

The link below is from ABC’s Nightline and is entitled “Is Dad the New Mom? The Rise of Stay-At-Home Fathers.” 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/stay-home-dads-dad-mom/story?id=16596365

 I’ve seen statistics elsewhere that fathers comprise only about 1-3% of all stay-at-home parents.  And that certainly jives with our family’s personal experience.  As a result, I think this article is overstating the “rise” of this family structure.  Indeed, the fact that Nightline is even focusing on it demonstrates the continuing novelty of having a dad who is so involved in his kids lives, let alone being their primary caregiver.  Nonetheless, I enjoy reading about fathers who are so devoted to and involved in their children’s upbringing. 

I thought one part of the Nightline story was particularly telling.  Towards the end of the article, a retired Navy vet (who now stays home with his four kids while his wife works as the CEO of a “big corporation”) was quoted as saying:

“My in-laws think I’m a bum and I’m fine because I worked, already had a career…And I say, ‘I am working.  If it were reversed, would you say your daughter is a bum?’ I’m a great father.  Try to respect that.” 

How tragic is that reaction this vet is experiencing?  I felt horrible that this gentleman is so disrespected--within his own extended family no less.  But his attitude also filled me with even greater respect for him.  It is tough enough to do the self-sacrificing work of full-time caregiving, but the job is even harder when people don’t appreciate your sacrifice and think you are a “bum.”

From personal experience, I think such misguided attitudes are common in our culture.  They seem to be based on three sad beliefs, which are suggested by this vet’s words. 

First, people think that “staying at home” with kids is a vacation.  One watches some Rachael Ray and eats snack foods all day while the kids entertain themselves.  Maybe that is how some depressed people spend their days, but not people who are dedicated to the raising of their kids and take the task seriously.  I don’t personally know any stay-at-home parents for whom that stereotype is true. 

The second sad belief underlying such misguided attitudes is that raising kids doesn’t require much parental involvement; consequently, devoting oneself full-time to the task is just a waste.  I don’t know where to even begin to comment on this particular belief.  Kids don’t just turn in to happy, productive people on their own or by accident.  Investing time and care in raising them is the highest calling, in my opinion.  As a Christian, I know that God values his children above anything else.  Devoting one’s time to child-rearing is a beautiful alignment of God’s values and the stewardship of one’s gifts.

The third sad belief is that the only worthwhile vocation is one for which one is paid.  Again, as a Christian, I flatly reject this worldly belief.  The market place determines which vocations receive financial compensation.  However, the market place is motivated primarily by self-interest and even greed.  Its values are not God’s values.  As a result, the market place’s determination of which vocations should receive financial compensation are not a proper reflection of their actual worth per godly values.

Job 15:18
What wise men have told, Not hiding anything received from their fathers.

Father’s Day and Dan Quayle

Sometimes I wonder if Dan Quayle got it right.  Younger readers may be wondering who the heck Mr. Quayle is.  Many older readers will be horrified at the prospect that I might agree with Mr. Quayle on any topic.  He was after all one of the most ridiculed and disrespected vice presidents of all time.  If Dick Cheney was equated with villains like Darth Vader, Mr. Quayle was considered analogous to Barney Fife. 

There probably aren’t a lot of areas where Mr. Quayle and I agree.  But I remember the brouhaha when Mr. Quayle in 1992 condemned the sitcom Murphy Brown for portraying a single woman having a child on her own.  Forget the fact that the pregnancy was a “jump the shark” sort of storyline.  It created a big media firestorm over Mr. Quayle’s outdated thinking.  He raised concerns about glamorizing single mom status and the marginalizing of the role of fathers. 

Mr. Quayle was attacked brutally in the media because he seemed to be condemning single moms.  That point did resonate with me.  To many, such attacks seemed hypocritical at the time because Mr. Quayle was such a virulent opponent of abortion rights.  If one is opposed to abortion, then it seems like one would have championed the Murphy Brown character’s decision to not have an abortion after discovering an unplanned pregnancy with a man who was not in her life permanently.  It seemed a low blow to condemn even a fictional character who chose life in such a situation. 

In the subsequent decade, I don’t recall anyone condemning Bristol Palin for not marrying Levi Johnston.  At least in the circles where I travel, the younger Ms. Palin was respected for taking responsibility to raise her son despite the circumstances.

I have tremendous respect for all single parents.  Parenting is very hard and I frankly don’t know how single parents do it.  Most single parents are mothers.  So, I want to be clear that I’m second to none in my admiration, support and absolute awe of single moms.

Nonetheless, Mr. Quayle’s 1992 comment about the Murphy Brown character “mocking the importance of fathers” has always stuck with me.  I am also second to none in my respect for fathers.  I’ve known plenty of families where fathers have a minimal role in their children’s lives.  Over the years, I’ve thought a lot about why this should be.  Typically, in my observation, such marginalization seems to be self-imposed to a great extent.  Two things seem to drive the choices: job demands and lack of role modeling. 

Many dads are the sole or primary breadwinner of their families.  They are particularly vulnerable to overly burdensome workplace demands.  But even if both partners work outside the home, we all feel compelled to make plenty of sacrifices to keep our employers happy.  We live in a nation without many employment protections, the job market has been horrible for years, people who lose their jobs might not get another for years, and unlike most other industrialized nations, there is not much of a safety net if a family’s breadwinner loses his/her job.  As a result, there is a fair amount of desperation and fear surrounding the possible loss of employment.  Many people sacrifice time with their family to keep bread on the table.

In my observation, another factor involving the self-marginalization of fathers is lack of role modeling.  I know a lot of dads who want to be good dads and who love their kids, but they were not particularly close to their own dads.  Their dads were often not at home because they were trying to put food on the family’s table.  When those earlier dads were around, they were often tired and frankly just wanted to relax.  When they did have time at home, they didn’t necessarily take time to be involved in their kids’ lives.  All grown up, their now adult sons often never really witnessed men as active parents.  Their moms were the main parenting role model as they grew up, but most men don’t want to emulate their mothers in parenting.  In my observation, many modern fathers frankly don’t know what an active, involved dad looks like. 

Not only do many modern adults not have personal experience with active fathering, we also don’t see a lot of examples in movies or TV either.  I’ve noticed there are reoccurring storylines of dads who bumble through relationships with their kids—they are rarely there and when they are, they screw everything up.  Robin Williams in particular has made a career out of playing such characters.  I don’t think such characters are a fluke.  They are representative of what many families experience in the modern United States.

As we get closer to Father’s Day, I want to spend some time focusing on the role of modern fathers and reflecting a bit on visions of devoted fathering.  We just don’t seem to get a lot of that in our culture.

In the meantime, I commend to you an article I found recently reflecting back on Mr. Quayle’s take on Murphy Brown:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/20-years-later-it-turns-out-dan-quayle-was-right-about-murphy-brown-and-unmarried-moms/2012/05/25/gJQAsNCJqU_story.html

Job 29:16
I was a father to the needy; I took up the case of the stranger.

Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey (2011)

My kids and I watched this delightful documentary recently about Kevin Clash, the puppeteer who is best known for having developed the Sesame Street character, Elmo.  Because our family does not watch much TV, our kids have not even seen the television show very many times.  But even if you are not a regular viewer, who doesn’t love Elmo?

One sweet aspect of the documentary was the explanation of the essence of the Elmo character.  He is supposed to be a little kid who is the embodiment of love.  He is vulnerable and loves others.  And that vulnerability and love is very endearing to people.  He is wildly popular with children (and adults alike). 

One beautiful, but heart-breaking aspect of the film was where Mr. Clash explained that he had never really understood the impact the Elmo character had until Sesame Street began to get requests for visits by terminally ill children.  It had a profound impact on Mr. Clash when he was told that spending time with Elmo was the dying wish of many such children.  It was moving to see in the film the adoration of kids like that and the hugs they gave the puppet.  And the bittersweet looks of appreciation on the faces of their parents.  My hearts just broke for them that they were guiding their children through their last days on this earth.  But meeting Elmo seemed to bring peace to the families.

I thought the documentary’s exploration of the influence of Mr. Clash’s own family on the development of the Elmo character was also really interesting.  Some interviewees talked about how Elmo’s pure, loving heart was a reflection of Kevin Clash himself.  But one interviewee, who had known him since his early days as a teen puppeteer in Baltimore, disagreed and said that the reality was that Elmo was a reflection of Kevin’s parents.  They were so loving, supportive and enthusiastic; those qualities were expressed in the Elmo character.

Indeed, it was really sweet to hear Mr. Clash’s parents being interviewed.  They were just bubbling with pride in their son.  The Clash family lived in a poor neighborhood when Kevin was growing up.  Money was really tight.  Kids at school made fun of his interest in puppets.  At one point, his growing obsession with puppets inspired Kevin to cut up the lining of his dad’s winter coat to make a new puppet.  After he realized what he had done, he was fearful of what his dad would do.  But the elder Mr. Clash was so impressed by the puppet his son had created, he simply told Kevin to ask first next time before cutting up clothing.  (Baltimore winters are cold, what a reaction!)  Despite all this, Mr. and Mrs. Clash supported Kevin’s unusual passion. 

In the days before the internet and when long-distance was expensive, Mrs. Clash even tracked down the man who crafted Jim Henson’s Muppets.  That gentleman ended up becoming Kevin’s critical mentor who taught him a lot about puppeteering and even opened doors for him with Jim Henson.  Thank goodness for a supportive mom!

The last part of the film I wanted to mention was Kevin Clash’s own family.  Apparently, his marriage and his daughter’s birth coincided with the rise of Elmo as a cultural phenomenon.  Kevin Clash was traveling a lot and his marriage did not last.  He also missed a lot of his daughter’s childhood.  But he loves her so much.  At one very touching part of the film he compares the wonder of creating a puppet and the wonder of creating a human being.  He describes the joy it brings him to make puppets and create puppet characters.  But he describes with a sense of awe that his daughter is more amazing than any puppet.  With tears in his eyes, he describes his pride in and love for her.

Psalm 103:13

As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him.

Discovery Atlas: China Revealed (Separation of Families)

There was another family highlighted in the film that I wanted to mention.  A male window washer in Shanghai was chronicled.  He is a migrant from the provinces who had come to seek better wages in the big city.  He risked his life on a daily basis doing a very dangerous job.  He washed high rise office buildings at night to avoid disrupting elite professional workers during business hours. 

Sadly, he lived in Shanghai alone.  He moved to Shanghai for economic opportunities, but due to the limited freedoms people have to relocate within the PRC, his wife and child had to stay in their home village.  That is such a sad situation, but not uncommon in the PRC in the twenty-first century. 

Tragically, this pattern in the PRC is not new in the world.  It is not uncommon for couples and parents/children to be split apart for long periods because of dire economic conditions that prompt adults (usually but not always males) to go elsewhere to earn money to support the family. For example, the current situation in the PRC is not unlike the plight of Mexican and Central American migrants in the United States who are separated from their families for months or years at a time.  And it is reminiscent of the separation of families in South Africa during the apartheid era when men would go work in mines or other locations far away from the “homelands” where their wives and children were legally confined.

Discovery Atlas: China Revealed focused on the window washer as he traveled home to see his wife and child at Lunar New Year.  This is a very common practice.  Many adults in the PRC have had to leave their families in the provinces to seek jobs in large urban settings.  They typically are poor and don’t have the resources to travel home very often.  The Lunar New Year is a huge holiday in Chinese culture, perhaps analogous to Christmas in the United States.  It is the time when many such families reunite. 

I felt so sad in watching the documentary that when the window washer arrived in his village, his little daughter did not recognize him or show any excitement over his presence.  She seems stunned and weary of him.  Understandably, he is heartbroken to be a stranger to his only child.  What parent wouldn’t be?  He has had to make huge sacrifices to provide financially for his family, and his daughter does not even know him.

Psalm 2:7

I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.”

Discovery Atlas: China Revealed (Women and Families)

There were a few other parts of Discovery Atlas: China Revealed that seem particularly relevant to this blog.    For example, part of the documentary featured the PRC’s war on drugs.  The film focused on the nation’s drug police.  There was a scene where a taxi driver was arrested for dealing drugs, and the narrator noted that he would face the death penalty for such crimes.

The film then focused on the experience of a female drug police officer.  As a woman, she had broken barriers to succeed and excel in her profession.  It was noted how rare and amazing her achievements were in the male-dominated culture of the PRC.  It was also noted that she constantly had to prove herself despite her past achievements.

The film also noted that this female drug police officer was a single woman.  In her interview, she expressed that she couldn’t find Mr. Right, and men did not seem to approve of her professional accomplishments.  In listening to her, I came away with the sense that she was destined to a life of loneliness simply due to her professional success.  That was very sad to me.

However, I was heartbroken by the attitudes of the parents of this female drug police officer.  Apparently, she was their only daughter.  In their interview, they initially described their pride in her accomplishments.  But contradictorily, they also spent a lot of time expressing concern that she had not taken a more traditional path in life.  Her parents wished she had become a full-time wife and mother. 

My heart just broke for the female drug police officer.  She had worked so hard and accomplished so much, but she was still being condemned by her parents.  And how hurtful it must have been to be condemned for not having started a family.  I had the sense that she was already sad about her inability to find a supportive, suitable partner.  I had the sense she did not want to end up alone in the world such that her parents’ condemnation seemed to be rub salt in the wound.

Moreover, I felt very frustrated that the parents were so ungrateful for their daughter’s hard work.  Despite the fact that she comes home late from grueling hours at her job with the drug police, she cooks for her parents and cleans their clothes (by hand because they did not have a washing machine).  She seemed to be supporting them financially and caring for all their basic needs.  They lived in her home.  She was clearly making a lot of sacrifices for them. 

This drug police officer was caring for them and was asking little of them, which seemed odd to me.  They looked to be about 60 years of age and in very good health.  Indeed, I was surprised they didn’t have jobs themselves.  They seemed a little young to have retired.  But even if they had retired, they seemed to be perfectly capable of caring for themselves.  I was stunned that they were not doing more to pitch in around the house.  From my perspective, they ought to have been washing her clothes and having a hot meal on the table for her when she got home from a long day on the job.  The parents’ attitude seemed selfish and not loving.

Colossians 3:21

Fathers, do not aggravate your children, or they will become discouraged.