Media, You Make Me Sick

These are my reactions, disgusted and outraged, with things that CNN anchors were saying on January the 14th, which was among the first days of the Haiti Earthquake coverage, I think. For whatever reason, I only thought to post this here just now.

The italics are quotes or near-quotes from CNN anchors. (I went from memory, but they're close.)

"We warn you, some of the images you are about to see may be disturbing."

Disturbing? Really? Perhaps you are just saying that to cover yourself legally, but I personally don't find the images of crumbling and fallen buildings crowding the streets to be "disturbing". In fact, I'd go to say that that is not disturbing-we go to the movies to see that and these real life images aren't any different other than the fact that they won't go away when the cameras do (now that's disturbing).

What I find disturbing are the images of the true devastation to human life. For instance, the injured-none of which you are really showing. You've done a good job at picking the un-physically-affected people, haven't you? Or maybe you just can't show the devastation on human life beyond bodies covered in sheets and blanket and sobbing family members. That's not to say that I'm sadistic enough that I want to see mangled forms, but if you're going to show the true impact of the situation, show us what can't be rebuilt. Edifices can be replaced. Human life cannot.

And if you find these images so disturbing, why is your voice flat? Why are your eyes dead? Why don't you cringe?

"It was such a fragile country to begin with."

And yet you didn't care about it until you could ream a story from it. Amazing how it takes a natural disaster for us to pay attention to a place that needs help.

"Even the president wasn't spared."

And you expected he would be? You expected the quake to come along and say, "Oh! This is the pres' house! I must not touch!" and then mosey along on its way while conveniently leaving his house standing? If you did…then you're a moron.

"President homeless."

I'm glad at least he has the right idea. Let's focus on helping others, shall we? Instead of like you want to do. All you want to do is focus on where he's going to sleep tonight. What about everyone else? They're just as homeless as he is, but you don't care about them, do you? They're not as important, it seems.

"We've heard that all this relief has been sent to help, but we're still seeing the same images."

Seriously? You just said that? Look, honey, it's not going to be immediate sunshine and rainbows just because the ever-mighty U.S sent a bunch of help in metal flying machines. If anything, maybe we should expect it to get worse, considering the 'help' that has been sent to other countries. If you want immediate results, go watch a movie.

"I'm sure we'll hear many more amazing survival stories as the days go on."

It's fantastic that there are survivors, but all you seem to care about are the stories. Here I see your eyes light up and a smile tug at your lips, which I find more disturbing than any of the images I've seen so far. How dare you think only of the story when this is real life disaster? People's lives are at stake and all you care about is getting the big scoop. Stop thinking like a reporter with a quota and start thinking like a compassionate human being. You make me sick.

I had to turn of the T.V. and walk away here, so thoroughly disgusted with you that I would only get angrier if I continued. Only get louder in yelling at the television (even though that does nothing more than let me vent into the air).

I'm so happy that you care when you can get a story out of it. I'm so thrilled that your eyes light up when there is death and destruction for you to talk about. I'm ecstatic that you now have something to talk about for the next week and a half instead of how crumby the economy is or that guy who said Obama was a good candidate because he was "light skinned" and doesn't speak in "negro dialect". Good for you.

Yes, I'm thoroughly disgusted.

On Wolf Comics and Constructive Criticism

Phew first off, allow me to dust off this poor neglected blog of mine. Not that I ever intended to use it extensively, I suppose, but still.

The following refers to happenings on deviantART, so, if you are not familiar with the site, I don't know how much of this you will follow.

I am not intending to start a war or to offend anyone. Rather, I want to give my opinion on the matter, which is why I'm posting it here rather than my dA journal because there is the risk of causing an uproar.

Now, let's begin.

It's no secret that there are many, many wolf/canine related comics on dA. Anyone who's been on the site for a little while can surely see that, as for the past few years wolves have saturated the popular page and people's favourites extensively. Perhaps it has always been this way and I'm just terribly inobservant, but I don't remember wolves being such a big deal when I started out on dA six years ago.

I'm not here to bash wolf lovers and wolf artists though, especially considering that would be hypocritical on so many levels. Wolves are my heart and soul and a good deal of my own gallery is consumed by them.

Equally, I am not here to bash those who have wolf comics, but rather I am here to discuss this, for it is constantly up for criticism and in the spotlight.

There is no way that I am going to waste my time and yours by listing every single wolf comic there is on dA; for one, I don't know all of them and for two I'm sure it would need an index and a half in itself. Of course, there is one wolf comic that will likely instantly pop into a dA user's mind when asked to name one.

The Black Blood Alliance, by deviant KayFedewa, with backgrounds done by deviant Esda06.

While I have very little problem with the BBA itself (I do read it and purchased the first issue), my vexation stems from the people who constantly compare every other wolf comic in dA existance to it. I understand that we will always make comparisons, and that indeed, there are those who blatantly copy the series, but not every wolf comic is going to be a BBA rip-off or even BBA inspired. It's easy to see that the BBA bears the brunt of being the main comparison piece because of its popularity, however, that does not mean that it is the only wolf comic allowed.

Acutally, I'm not sure I believe that there are people suggesting that, but when every wolf comic bears this scrutiny and comparison to the BBA, it almost seems like it. Every plot point is automatically copyright to the BBA somehow. Every coloured wolf is now BBA rip-off. This, I find, is absolutely ridiculous.

Stories get told and retold. Plot points get recycled in other tales that have nothing to do with the first. Any English major, anyone who reads a lot, anyone who watches a lot of television and movies will tell you this. Hell, anyone who listens to music will tell you it's a lot of the same thing over and over again for the most part. Tropes (common themes used in storytelling) exist; they're also called clichés. While clichés can be terribly annoying, sometimes the author takes a cliché and turns it around for the better. I'm not saying that all authors do, but prejudging a comic or story simply because it has one similar plot point or because it is using a common trope doesn't, for one, automatically mean it's bad, and for two, doesn't make you a better person.

At the same time, every comic shouldn't be under scrutiny just because it features wolves. Yes, they are popular. Yes, perhaps there is an oversaturation of them. That does not mean that we should judge everything that involves them negatively.

Wow, that's a lot of preamble that I hadn't originally intended to be there. Really, there is one circumstance that finally prodded me into writing this and I'm more than certain that the reason I'm acting now is because I am involved with it, however indirectly. Really, I intended to begin this entry like this:

My name is Laura Barton. I'm 19 years old. I read OPAW.

What is OPAW? The acronym itself stands of Of Paws and Wings, a novel in progress by deviant Zraya218 and a comic in progress by Zraya218 and Barkback. Considering the nature of the preamble, I'm sure you can guess that it is a story about wolves. Unlike the BBA (to which I only make the comparison because other critics have), it features wolves and dragons, rather than wovles and sabers. Indeed, both begin by featuring a war, but this is a trope people. Go tell George Bush that his wanting to stay in war is too overdone (that's an opinion for another day, if ever).

Personally, when I stumbled upon OPAW, it was still only in its novel form. I wasn't attracted to it because it had colourful wolves and "sparkledogs", as the EncyclopediaDramatica has come to call them. True, the fact that there were wolves in the story intrigued me, but that is because I like wolves, not because I was looking for "sparkledogs", which I don't think the OPAW characters are anyway.

How I came across OPAW, I don't even remember. Likely I was doing what I call "page hopping"; essentially, exploring people's galleries and going to each next one because something the person has said or his/her icon caught my attention. Nonetheless, I left a comment on the page of the novel that Zraya has posted and essentially haven't looked back for two reasons. One, because I enjoy the story, and two, because Zraya was kind enough to ask me to edit for her. While I consider myself more of a technical editor (grammatically speaking), I do give some input on the plot of the story and such as well. BUT, this is Zraya's story. I don't believe in editors telling the author what I write; I'd much rather guide instead, doing what I can to help bring what she wants in her story. I have this opinion about editors because I, myself, am an author. I highly dislike when people come along and tell me what to write.

Of course, I expect some to now call me biased throughout the rest of this considering my involvement in OPAW, however, I ask that you hear me out. I'm making an effort to be as unbiased as possible and rather use my knowledge of the tale from what Zraya has told me (without revealing any spoilers).

OPAW has recently joined the plethora of wolf comics on dA, with artwork done by Barkback, who I have only spoken with a few times. Because of this transformation into a comic, it of course has come under the eye of critical persons. I have no problem with this at all. Indeed, critique, when constructive, is fantastic. However, I get the notion that people seem to be forgetting something about the first three pages that have been posted to date. Something that is rather important to consider.

This is just a proglogue so far.

The way I've always seen this part of OPAW is as something like a legend. It's giving a little history, brief so you know the important parts about it, before getting into the bigger part of the story. One critic said that the story is being "force fed to the reader in three pages", which I entirely disagree with for the reason I stated above. This isn't the main part of the story, but rather the situation that initiated what is to come. Since I know a bit more of what is to come in the plot, I know that the story isn't being shoved down your throat within three pages.

Not to say that I disagree with all the critic in question says. Indeed, the first few pages do make or break a story (not just comics). It can't be expected that everyone is going to jump onboard with it and that is perfectly fine. No one is asking everyone to jump onboard with the story. That's how stories work. Some like them, some don't.

Also, she has a point about the wolves' pelt colours. Unnatural or unusually patterened colours on wolves is another fad that I tentatively say started with the BBA. I don't know for sure, but it seems that way to me. While perhaps the wolves of OPAW aren't naturally coloured in that they reflect nature, I don't think that they have any outrageous colours on them. Not even Ennov, I feel, is terribly unnaturally coloured. More, her pattern is what makes it unnatural. Perhaps the yellow wouldn't be so vibrant on an actual wolf and be more blonde in colour, but it still exists. Likely, it would be more mixed with the russet.

Yet, groaning about the colour of wolves' fur seems highly inconsequential when you think about something else: wolves and dragons didn't exist at the same time, if dragons ever existed at all. If we're all about being realistic here, let us consider that, shall we? Suspension of belief is a wonderful thing. True, logic is also necessary, however fur colour is the least of worries when you think about it.

Also, if dragons were real, depending on the breed, would that not place them at the top of the food chain as carnivors? I'm in no way saying they're evil, but rather removing our anthropomorphized, human ideals from them and treating them as if they had base instincts and didn't share the same kind of intelligence as humans. If they were animals like anything else, I would think they'd go after smaller prey like wolves. I'm not claiming I know this for sure, indeed, I know very little about dragons, but what I've said here makes sense to me.

Another point that someone brought up that I thought was interesting was that they didn't know who they were supposed to pity. True, most stories assert directly or indirectly who it is that you are supposed to be more sympathetic towards, but when I think about it, that's an interesting aspect about OPAW. Who are we supposed to pity? The dragons? The wolves? Despite their titles of the Savage Wolves and the Tranquil Dragons, due to the nature of the story, we still aren't sure who we should like or dislike. Yet, why do we need the story to tell us inadvertedly through the text? Why not just decide for ourselves based on how we judge the acitons of the characters? I'm a big believer in people making judgements for themselves.

"There is much more to life than revenge." I whole heartedly agree with this; honestly, I do. Revenge is a very common theme in stories across the world and sometimes it is incredibly hard to get away from. However, just because the theme of revenge is used, doesn't mean that we should condemn the story. And perhaps I'm totally out of my mind, but somehow OPAW doesn't scream to me about being a story of revenge.

In any case, I think revenge is a common theme because it is something that we can all relate to on some level. What I mean by relate is not that we all go out seeking revenge, but we understand it to an extent. Whether we agree with the one who is wanting revenge or not, we still can relate. I'm struggling with how to explain what I want to say here.

But what I'm getting at is that revenge is indeed used over and over, though, not all revenge is the same. Each person's form of revenge is different in that everyone reacts differently to situations. What it comes down to is the author's portrayal of the character's reaction.

Moving on, the reason I mentioned my age earlier is because many associate these wolf comics with "weeaboo" 16-year-old fans, however, I think myself anything but that. For one, I'm not sixteen, and for two I don't believe that I'm a "weeaboo". Perhaps the critic was speaking generally, but I just wanted to put that out there before someone started accusing me of being either thing.

I think I've exhausted all I wanted to say about wolf comics and more specifically OPAW; if I haven't, I can always come back and edit (or more likely post another entry since this one is long as it is).

The next part I wanted to look at is constructive criticism, something that I feel is abused and not well understood. My idea of constructive criticism, and what I look for when I go to critique someone is:

1. What has been done well and why? Why did this part stick out to me and make me think, "yeah, that's good"?
2. What could use improvement? Why? What suggestions can I give to help this person improve?

Many, many people out there these days, I feel, are saying they're giving constructive critique, but I scarce see the constructive side of it. There is no tell of what has been done well, or, if the critic feels that nothing has been done well (which is a valid response), said critic just points out what they feel is wrong and then tells the person what they "should" do (oftentimes this is "You should just stop").

My opinion is that the only time to tell someone what they "should" do is when it comes to rules of grammar. If someone writes "He went to they're house", I'm going to tell that person that that should be their, and also proceed to explain why. You can tell someone what they "should" do all you want, but if you have not explained why, what does that really amount to? It's more helpful to the person to explain your reasoning behind what you're saying, and personally speaking, I'm more inclined to listen to someone when he explains his thinking to me.

Or, if the critic does give reasoning behind his/her thinking, the entire comment is laced with degrading words and vulgar language. Really, you can express your dislike and reasoning for the dislike of something without resorting to swearing and tearing someone down. "Telling it as it is" or "as it comes to you" isn't an excuse. The way I see it, and the way I believe that studies have shown is that if you degrade someone and be rude, that person will shut down and stop listening. This has been seen countless times through people hiding or even disabling comments on dA. You can be telling the person all the truth of the world, scientific fact that has been proven over and over, but if you're being nasty about it, it's very unlikely that the person'll listen.

There is a difference between harsh constructive criticism and disrespectful [constructive] criticism (I put constructive in square braquets because it is not always constructive, even if the person writing it thinks it is). You can give harsh criticism and still be respectful. When you resort to be tactless, it becomes harmful rather than helpful. If anything, the person will shut down or renegade against you. This has been seen countless times by people celebrating their first "flamers", even if the critique is valid. Or, it could come to the person posting about the critique in a journal and then the dArama starts. Fans become a mob. A war begins. Ultimately, if it is given tactlessly, critique amounts to nothing that helps the thing you are critiquing.

I say that critique has been abused because there are many people who give "harsh critiques" (which are often degrading, unconstructive opinions) and then tell people to "grow some balls" or say that they're "butthurt" because they haven't listened to them or have spoken out against them. As I've said, degrading someone won't get him to listen to you. Any person who speaks out about a rude comment is automatically said to be "butthurt" and that they should "learn to accept critique or else they won't make it professionally." The latter is very true; professionalism does involve receiving critiques, however, critique and bashing are not the same.

I'm not claiming to be perfect in giving constructive criticism, but I try my damnedest to do it well. I was once one of those people that would just tell a person that his work was garbage and that he shouldn't continue (I could probably link you to some of these horrible comments on fanfiction.net). I offered nothing helpful to him (I use "him" as a general pronoun, not saying that it was necessarily a male) apart from my own negative views. I never received a reply from anyone I did that to; if I could, I would take those back, but it is a learning experience. And from it, I feel I have learned to be a better critiquer than I was.

There are several people I've seen that are far superior critiquers than I am. They see things that I don't. Conversely, I sometimes see things that others don't. Multiple sources of input are good.

Thinking about all I've said here, I think I've covered all that I had on my mind. Like I said, if I haven't, I'll either edit it in or just make a new post entirely so that this doesn't become even longer.

I am completely open for even-tempered discussion on these matters. I'm interested to know what others think.

Thanks so much for reading and sticking through this!

Laura.

Outer Beauty Importance

"Inner Beauty is important, but not nearly as important as outer beauty." - Ellen Degeneres, CoverGirl Commercial.

Really? I honestly could not believe my ears when I first heard that line in the commercial. I thought, "No way. They did not actually say that..." I mean, I've known all along that makeup commercials and all these age-defiers obviously are saying that in the undertones, but the fact that they would actually come out and say it just floored me.

And what else killed me was that no one in the media (that I saw) seemed to notice this blatant remark. Instead, the focus was on how Ellen is the first lesbian and first woman over fifty on a CoverGirl commercial or something to that sort. Why is the fact that she said that being so ignored? Seriously. Is it because they'll then have to say, "Well, that's what the commercial is saying anyway, whether it's vocalized or not"? Perhaps. I think it's very likely at least.

I just read a comment saying that she is just being sarcastic as a comedian. Really? It sounds pretty genuine to me (as much as an obviously scripted line can), and the fact that she then goes on to promote the product suggests to me that there is no sarcasm at all. Why would a company take a sarcastic stab like that and actually publicize it as their own commercial? I could see if they were being sarcastic and have her say afterwards something like, "Well, not really, but Covergirl whatever-product can help you feel your outer beauty." I just don't see it as a comedic thing.

And comedic jab or not, there are many out there, like myself who don't see it. Many of those who don't see it, I'm sure, are those who will also believe the words. They will take the words to heart and feel horribly about themselves.

Good job CoverGirl. I hope you're proud, because I'm sure you pulled in more insecure consumers with this commercial.

Thoughts?

The Occult and...Pokemon?

This is an old rant of sorts that I wrote back in October of 2005 and it was and still is posted on my deviantART account among my journals. After the original post, I will put some new things I've thought of concerning the matter.

Apparently, it's true. According to THIS website, Pokemon are somehow linked to the occult. They are also accused of being "overtly evil", along with the likes of Sailor Moon and Star Wars, not to mention Magic Cards. From what I gather, they are trying to imply that these things, but especially Pokemon will corrupt the youth. Now, I'm not sure as to how recent this website is as of yet, however I find this highly ridiculous and I think these people need to be whacked over the head with a beer bottle.

Yes, watch, dear parents, as we all become corrupt by the likes of Pokemon and depend solely on the Pokemon for our lives! *rolls eyes* I hope this isn't a recent website (I'm typing as I go along reading the website, so I don't know), seeing as Pokemon has been around for years and years, but if it is, oh boy. Come on people, don't you think they're taking this all a bit too seriously? I mean, it's just a television show/game and sure, there are some children who probably have trouble discerning reality from fiction, however I highly doubt it will corrupt them. Say by some chance it did "corrupt" some poor child. What are they going to do? Throw a toy Pokeball at us and shout "I choose you!" and await the Pokemon's arrival (though it will never come)? And if the child becomes so obsessed with the Pokemon world, then what do you do? Go see a shrink, for God's sake!

I find it preposterous how solely Pokemon is being blamed in this case. It could just as easily be any other video game or television show from anywhere around the world. According to this website, Pokemon disrupt families and classrooms. So what? Once again, it could just as easily be any other video game or television show, and I repeat, from anywhere around the bloody world. Just because Pokemon is a big hit doesn't mean it's connected with the Occult or any other forms of evil. Do these people honestly think that it's out there to corrupt youth?

I know South Park did an episode pertaining to this. They, of course, changed the name of Pokemon to Chinpokomon and made the characters to collect ridiculous, but the idea is still the same the way I see it. In this South Park episode, the Japanese people, who created the Chinpokomon, were plotting to take the youth of America and turn them against the government. I have a feeling they were making fun of the very situation I am speaking of and merely trying to show that it is just a "fad" or completely harmless, which I see it to be. I honestly don't think these Pokemon will lead to some rebellion of children and teenagers (perhaps even some adults) that are going to help the Japanese people take over and destroy the world.

The mantra "Gotta catch `em all!" is apparently driving the children to buy, and I quote, "more occult cards, games, toys, gadgets, and comic books". They are not occult cards, for one, and for two, that's called advertising *sarcastic gasp here* Oh no! God forbid advertising! Might as well just kill the television if people are going to get worked up over that.

While I cannot find a copyright date for these accusations, I assume that these come from 1999, as there are several references to Pokemon episodes and other things from that year. So, why I am going on about this "old news"? Well, for one, I must have missed this "old news" when it was actually happening because I cannot recall any of these accusations reaching my area of living. Perhaps I was just sheltered to it, however I once liked Pokemon as well (not so much that I wanted to "catch `em all", but I liked them nonetheless), so I don't see how I would be sheltered to it.

I was actually researching The Occult because I may discuss it for a speech topic for one of my classes, yet I stumbled upon this. This website declaring Pokemon evil. Now, whereas I find this stupid beyond reason, I also find it oddly amusing and fascinating that people really thought this stuff up. Go figure that it's a Christian website. I'm sorry if that offended anyone, but honestly all they accusations, not just pertaining to Pokemon, but to anything, about children's "fads" being connected to the occult always seem to come from a Christian groups or some other "good" religious group. Like the whole incident with Harry Potter for instance. I remember the big hullabaloo (^^; silly word) about that when Harry Potter was first published and I wouldn't doubt that it still happens all these years later.

Some of you may be thinking "Oh, look at this fifteen year old, sitting at her computer reading these things degrading anime. She's all upset and is now trying to defend it..." Blah, blah blah. Honestly, if you're thinking exactly that, I'm creeped out, but if you're thinking anything like that, you *insert really nasty threats here*. Sure, I adore anime, but I personally strongly dislike Pokemon these days. If you want my opinion on it, I think it's a very sad excuse for an anime. Sure, the first time it came out the idea was cool, but it just keeps going and going, like the Energizer bunny. Whom I'm defending more here are the Japanese who are being accused of trying to corrupt basically the world, starting with the young and impressionable minds. Perhaps I'm being highly rashional and blowing this way out of proportion, but I don't think I am. Read what's on the website (link above). What I've spoken about is what I read on less than half the page. Ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous. -_-; Stupid people and their crazy ideas... I couldn't help but rant about it and point out what I see as stupid.

Heh, I think I'll silence myself now and go read more about this "Pokemon Occult" and then maybe find a website that actually tells me about a real occult so I can write my speech...

03/26/08 - Apparently the website I referenced there is not longer in existance. Oh well. XD It was funny.

The New Part
First I'd like to mention that I've refound the article. Apparently, I either typed in the url incorrectly before or the webmaster changed it from a .com or a .org. In any case, here it is: How Pokemon and Magic Cards Affect the Minds and Values of Children

Secondly, I'd like to establish that I'm not out to bash religion. Nothing of the like; though I'm agnostic, I respect others' religious beliefs and values, even if my old entry doesn't seem to reflect that (I was less mature and less composed back then). Being agnostic, the way I understand it, is like saying I don't know if God or some higher being exists; maybe he/she/they does/do. How am I to know? Degrading someone else's religion isn't going to benefit me in any way and only creates hatred.

At the time I wrote the above 'rant' back in 2005, I don't think I really had a full understanding of the intention and function of mantras. Regardless, to this day, I still don't see Pokemon as being anything Occult-like in nature. That's just ridiculous.

I can see how the mantra of "Gotta Catch 'Em All" would stick with a kid and influence them to want to buy all the Pokemon products. HOWEVER, that isn't really occultish, is it? Sure, this desire to "catch 'em all" could lead the family to harm, causing financial strain and the bit, but I'm sorry, if you can't control your child enough to say "no" and that he/she can't have EVERY toy/game/item he/she wants, then "catch[ing] 'em all" is going to be the least of your worries.

What is the occult? Well, I can't say I've done extensive research on it, so the true meaning the the occult could elude me. In my eyes, though, the occult is something of a dark and sinister nature that ultimately has evil intentions. Am I way off base? You tell me.

I suppose religiously--speaking from my impressions of the article--that it is something that goes against the religion in the sense that it creates a false idol. Again, I'm not extensively researched on religion either, just going from impressions. I can understand how this would concern someone with religious beliefs. You know my solution?

TALK TO YOUR CHILDREN!

It's as simple as that. If you take the time and make the effort to actually inform your children about the difference between what's real and what's pretend, the world will be a lovely place. In my opinion, parents have so many problems with their children like the article speaks of because they rely on said media to raise their children. Please, that won't get you any farther than you already are. And depriving your child of a fad or something that interests him/her will only make him/her crawl all the closer to it behind your back.

Yes, I see at the very end of the article there that it says for parents to direct these sorts of questions at their child. Good for them. I'm not being sarcastic there. I seriously think that's a good idea (I did just perscribe talking to your child, yes?). BUT, I don't know that I entirely agree with those questions/suggestions.

"2. Share your observations. Spark awareness in a young child with comments such as, "That monster looks mean!" or "That creature reminds me of a dragon," along with "Did you know that in the Bible, serpents and dragons always represent Satan and evil?"" Yes, I understand that serpents and dragons are represtentative of evil in the Bible and the Christian world, but serpents and dragons have entirely different meanings in other cultures and religions. Let's look at Japanese culture, since Pokemon is from Japan.

Again I don't claim to be an expert and am instead going from my understanding of the culture through anime, manga, Japanese film and television and what little I do know from what little research I have done. The way I see it, dragons are often depicted as gods in their culture. I see the problem for Christians right there, BUT I don't see these dragons as being evil. Again, the way I see it, Japanese dragons are more revered than thought of as evil entities in which we need to watch out for.

In my views, dragons being the symbol and epitome of evil are both "western" and probably even Christian originated views. I'm not putting down Christianity, I'm just saying that those from Asian culture--THOSE WHO CREATED THE SHOW/SERIES--would not necessarily see dragons as being ultimately evil then, would they? They don't necessarily have the same views as we western folk do. Really, does Dragonite look all that mean to you?

I'm not saying then that all the dragons in Pokemon are going to be good then. Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Instead, I'm going to look at it like people. Some people are good, some people are bad. We all share the same (generally speaking) form, but if you were to call all of us bad or all of us good, people would be up in your face about it. Therefore, saying all dragons and serpents are evil, to me, is the same sort of deal. It's not necessarily true.

If you want to teach your child your religious beliefs, go for it. All the power to you. However, I would also suggest teaching them to be open-minded and creative. What do I know, right? How can an agnostic possibly understand the Christian point of view?

I'll have you know that I was raised Christian. Baptized, Sunday-school attendee and everything. My family did teach me the things that God wants His followers to know, and I certainly went to church every Sunday up until I was about twelve. Even with their teachings, though, I was still taught open-mindedness and my parents didn't try to squish my imagination into little bits just because my playing of pretend didn't fit with the Bible's laws of existance. (If they had, I could hardly see how I would be an aspiring writer now.) I know, now you're going to say their teaching me open-mindedness is what has led me to being agnostic, right? Maybe you're right, I don't know for sure. BUT, being agnostic, I'm not denying God's existance, am I? I'm just saying I don't know. (Admittedly, however, watching Zeitgeist has tainted my view of Christianity a little.)

Seriously though, I hardly believe that the creators of Pokemon are trying to warp the young minds of children and turn them all evil. And not that I play "Magic", but I don't think there is anything really sinister behind that either. It's called pretend. Make believe. Using your imagination. Please, don't squash imagination. Help shape it. When has destruction ever led to good?

Of course I'm biased in my opinion, just like the author of the article I'm making reference to was biased in his/hers. No matter how objective we try to be, some of our bias will ultimately leak in. We choose which information we want to represent our theses after all.

And parents, you're worried about Pokemon, Magic, Star Wars, Sailor Moon and Harry Potter, yes? Do you let your kids watch Disney films? If you said yes, then you should really take a step back and look at those pieces of work. I'm not going to say anything extensively horrible about Disney here because personally I think some of it is being looked into a bit too much, that and Disney doesn't like people talking bad about their corporation. Instead, let me direct you to the film Mickey Mouse Monopoly and it'll open your eyes to some of Disney's films that everyone coos over as being amazing and harmless. I'm not sure I agree with all that film says, as I've already indicated, but some of it is shocking.

Oh, and just as an end note, I'd like to state that I don't abhor Pokemon to the extent that I seemed to in my previous 'posting'. Rather, I'm just not a rabid, crazy fan of it. I don't even watch the show (I HAVE seen some episodes AND the movies, though); I think some of those Pokemon are cute though.

All mentioned products/television shows/websites and so forth are copyright© to their respective owners.

And to think, I hadn't intended to post anything on this blog. XD