The First Dirty Word

I recently met the father of a good friend and during our discussion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the topic eventually turned to movies. He, as I, love entertainment.

I think it is a common occurrence to talk about movies and entertainment whenever you meet with friends. For better or for worse, media is our common experience and sharing reactions about this show or that guides most casual conversation.

I love to think what would happen if you said to a gathering of friends, "I was reading in the conversations of Plato recently and came across an interesting concept. . . "

You'd be met with blank stares.

But if you said, "Hey, what were they thinking when they chose Felicia as the American Idol?"

You would immediately be accepted as one of the herd.

Popular entertainment does not train us or our children to be deep thinkers. As a result our conversations center around what we viewed last rather than what we thought or wrote or discovered through our personal contemplations. Watching a movie or television is easier than reading or writing.

Of course, while talking about movies my new friend and I eventually got around to what we'd seen recently and I was surprised to recount how rarely I actually go to a movie at a theatre. Studies show that if you are over 40 years of age you go to about three movies a year. If you are 18 to 25 you go to more than 50!

We spoke of our difficulty in finding a good movie, one that doesn't center on sex or gratuitous violence. I mentioned my appreciation for Frank Capra, the Hollywood director of It's a Wonderful Life, who said that movies should remind us that we "are born divine, free, strong, a child of God and that goodness is riches and wisdom is glory." I like that.

Yet, finding a film that reaffirms my life or speaks to my soul at the local cineplex is nearly impossible. While examples where violence is used to solve problems, casual sex is an audition for the prom and the name of God is reduced to vulgar adjectives are plentiful.

Even movies that are "family oriented" as the Hollywood promoters indicate often contain what I call "except fors". "Except for" that one scene it would have been a good movie. I wonder. If those offensive elements were gone from a movie would the movie itself be any less entertaining?

Have you ever gone to a movie and afterword said to yourself. "You know if that gal would have cussed just a few more times. WOW, that would have been a great movie?"

As we lamented the scarcity of family entertainment he told me an interesting story.

In 1939, when Gone With the Wind was in the theater, (the only place your could see a movie in 1939), he was a teen-age usher.

Of course, everyone knows that Clark Gable was the first actor to exercise every director's free speech right to offend the sensitivities of the audience when he said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a _amn!"

I'd heard the story before but his next comment was very revealing in just how far we have come as a culture.

In that theater, in 1939, when Gable said the line, the entire audience visibly gasped. He stood in the back of the theater and watched.

Why? Because they had never heard that word through the powerful medium of film. It was a word for private conversation. Vulgarity and profanity was unwelcome in formal society. Ugly speech offended the community standard, was condemned as unacceptable and relegated to backrooms and barnyards.

My next thought was, "What would Gable say to her today?"

What's Going On?

My son sent me this note in an email this morning.

I found it interesting because I see evidence all around me that those who are working to live their lives according to higher principles, call them the "old fashioned principles of polite society", are finding peace in this world, answers to problems and hope for the future. It is true in my family.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?" In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they WILL think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it...no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in!

The Internet can bring you much good.

It is also capable of bringing a degree of danger and damage that parents must not only understand but also take steps to protect against.

Francis Bacon said that "Heaven knows how to price it's goods." Heavenly goods are honor, integrity, goodness, respect, kindness, order to name a few. Personal experience and individual evidence of the value of these "goods" comes through trying to use them until you understand them. You will never know goodness if you never engage in it. You will never understand honor if you have none. You will never know virtue if your mind is full of vice. You must exercise each "heavenly good" until its unmistakeable features become a part of your character. In my experience the elements of our condition that bring understanding and order to my family are found in heavenly things.

Young Teens and Violent Movies -- Not in My House

It becomes more and more apparent to me that the only person I can trust to protect the content of movies that are seen in my home is me.

A recent study from the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth College finds a surprising number of young teenagers watching extremely violent movies.

James Sargent, the lead author of the study and Professor of Pediatrics at Dartmouth Medical School said, "through movies, adolescents are being esposed to brutal and often sexualized violence."

The survey revealed that the most popular movies from a list of 50 of the most violent films released from 1988 to 1999 were randomly selected from the top 600 box office films. These movies, all R-rated, and not meant to be seen by children contained scenes depicting such family friendly activities as sadistic rape, sodomy, brutal or ritualistic murders and cannibalism. On average, these movies were seen by 28 percent of the sample. In other words, walk into an American public school class of 5th graders and nearly one in three of them has watched a brutal rape and accepts murder as an entertaining plot device. Ask them why they liked these films, if they admit to seeing them and their answer will be, "They're cool."

The top movies for fifth graders, who are usually about 10 years old, were "I Know What you Did Last Summer" and "Scream," with both movies seen by more than 40 percent of the fifth graders surveyed. R-rated films are supposed to be restricted for people under the age of 17.

Two other R movies, "The General's Daughter" and "Natural Born Killers," were also seen by a surprising number of children.

"The General's Daughter," which contained graphic and violent rape scenes, was seen by 27 percent of the sample of more than 5000 children.

"Natural Born Killers," portraying young lovers on a killing spree mixed with sex, was seen by 20 percent of the study group.

It was especially interesting to me that the authors of the survey said their "results suggest that better oversight of movie industry marketing practices might be warranted."

Oh, really?

If you're own children watch violent movies you will see changes in their behavior. If your children do not watch violent movies, they still must interact with other children who do and because of repeated exposure to violence by those children your children are impacted as well.

Another note:

Dr. Sargent is the author of another interesting study that indicates adolescents whose favorite movie stars smoke on-screen are more likely to be smokers themselves. If you think that children who see people smoke in movies are not affected as to whether they smoke later in life, then you are wrong.

It's time to wake up and smell the smoke and put out the fires.

Fourth Grade Theater -- Afterall

I'm helping with my son's school play. Nothing lavish; cute music, the costumes turned out well and for a few moments in the lives of these 4th grade performers one might even think that they were actually on "Treasure Island"! Not true, but a good effort by about 50 kids and two very dedicated teachers.

I think they called me in because I'm not worn out and wearied down by the constant effort required to maintain the attention of young people. These ten and eleven year-olds launched everything I said to a thousand different places in their intellect. At times I thought I'd stumbled into a camp of very small, extremely brain damaged comedians. Most times my suggestions were scattered like "water skippers", those spider-looking bugs that walk on water, swarm like wasps and flee from slight disturbances.

Underneath the energy and chaotic clamor of our rehearsal was a goodness that's found in children. And as we completed the first performance, they were excited by their successes and adamant in their excuses. Which is what I found most interesting of all.

It is a rare child who listens.

It's the common child who shouts.

While responding to simple on and off-stage instructions; blame was readily placed for every innocent mistake of others and responsibility quickly denied for naive blunders and intended disruptions by themselves.

It seemed as if every child, and certainly the more vocal ones, declared everyone else at fault while claiming the group's collective success as their own.

They are young and they will grow. They are children and they're self focused. But the very complicated process of fifty beings producing sixty minutes of performance saw little give and take and lots of grab and twist and turn and forget.

Yet as we finished our performances, all two of them, wonderful results peaked through in spite of my challenge and their activities.

The discipline of doing something the correct way, though forced by sheer personality on my part, produced competence. A boy who wanted no part of the experience declared his enthusiasm for his effort managing scenery.

Clamor that was fueled by not knowing what to do turned into calm as the structure of rehearsal and repeated effort produced laughter and applause. The girl most likely to disrupt our runthroughs became the character most delighting the spectators.

Emotional age notwithstanding, the influence of principle and structure, small and insignificant as it was for me in comparison to the personality of growing young people made my foray into fourth grade theater a positive happening.

The Dangers of File Sharing on the Internet

Pornography File Sharing 5/17/2004
By Kathryn Hooks

P2P (Peer to Peer) is a widely popular new teen computer activity. P2P means that the computers talk directly with each other. There is no legal or business entity between your computer and the computer it is linking to.

It's happening right under parents' noses, but few know that their teens and young children are targeted in a new battle tactic of the pornography industry. Peer-to-peer file sharing programs represent a widely popular new trend among today's youth.


In the 1990s Napster was forced to shut down to protect copyrighted music, and recently the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced its plans to now sue users trading music files. However, the new "peer-to-peer" or P2P networks like Kazaa, Morpheus, and Grokster pose a new and far greater problem than the illegal trade of music. These P2P networks allow children to easily download videos and images of free pornography and illegal child pornography and create a new arena for pedophiles.


The programs seem innocent enough to kids downloading music, but the apparent innocence of the programs draw porn distributors to this new channel. According to the RIAA, 41 percent of people downloading files through P2P networks are between the ages of 12 and 18, and Kazaa, the most popular P2P file-sharing program, typically has 4 million simultaneous users.


A study conducted in March of 2003 by the Committee on Government Reform and the General Accounting Office revealed: pornography is widely available and accessible on P2P networks; children using P2P networks can easily be exposed to pornography inadvertently; and the filters available to parents to protect their children have severe limitations.


The GAO used 12 keywords associated with porn to search Kazaa, and 76 percent of the returned titles and file names were pornographic with 42 percent representing child pornography. The term "porn" was entered yielding 25,000 pornographic titled files proving the P2P pornographic accessibility. Children can stumble across pornographic images much easier than imagined. The GAO used the popular child search terms –– "Britney," a pop singer, "Olsen twins," teenage actresses, and "Pokemon," a popular cartoon character. Over half the results contained pornographic images.


According to a study done by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in 2001, 70 percent of online youth between the ages of 15 - 17 say they have stumbled across porn online, and of those exposed to such content, 49 percent were upset by the experience. The study also found that young people agree: "[Stumbling upon pornography] is upsetting to many young people - especially young girls - and most think it is a serious problem."


Parental-control software does not work on the P2P file-sharing programs. None of the parental-control programs tested by the GAO, including the common NetNanny, blocked all pornographic images. Parental control settings within the P2P networks easily allow children to disable them. Penny Nance, President of Kids First Coalition, said she sees the lack of filter ability for parents as a major concern and believes the FTC should force P2P networks to install effective parental controls.


Since tracking child pornography reports on P2P networks in 2001, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found a fourfold increase of reports occurred within a year. The NCMEC also noted that pedophiles show children images of other kids performing sexual acts to convince them of its acceptability.


These P2P networks provide an open field for pedophiles to exchange child porn images and lure in young children. According to Nance, pedophiles enter words such as "Britney" and "Pokeman" to find children downloading these terms. Then through P2P instant messenger they entice kids by acting like another child to provide them with information such as their name, age and where they go after school.


"Pedophiles are able to stalk children through P2P networks. [P2P networks] are the new virtual playground for pedophilia," Nance said.


The threat of pedophilia is a legitimate cause for concern. This May the American Psychiatric Association debated whether or not pedophilia - having sex with a child - constituted a mental disorder. Some experts viewed the debate as an early step in a campaign to normalize child molestation.


The greatest challenges in protecting children from Internet pornography require the government's active enforcement of the law and parental awareness of the danger on-line.


Jan LaRue, legal expert for Concerned Women for America, stated, "The failure of the Department of Justice to vigorously and consistently enforce the federal obscenity laws is the major problem. The ignorance of parents is [another] big factor. Too many allow kids unrestricted Internet access. Many parents fail to educate themselves and their kids about why porn is harmful."


If parents fail to recognize the tactics and consequences of pornography on all children, the porn addicts and pedophiles of the cultural sex war will devour another generation - child by child.


Kathryn Hooks, a recent graduate of Mississippi State University, wrote this as an intern at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, research arm of Concerned Women for America. She was Miss MSU, president of the Panhellenic Council, voted one of 12 “Big Dawgs” (top student leaders) and graduated with highest honors.

Music Downloads are Doorway to Pornography

Feds Arrest 65 for Sending Porn Via Internet File-Sharing Technology 5/17/2004
By Rebecca Jones

Actions confirm ‘peer to peer’ networks open children to risk from pedophiles.

Federal officials announced on Friday that a nationwide investigation into peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing technology as a means for exchanging child pornography has resulted in 1,000 cases and 65 arrests. Those arrested face charges of distribution of child pornography and sexual abuse of children.


These actions affirm the dangers of peer-to-peer technology, the subject of a congressional hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on May 6. Members of Congress convened “Online Pornography: Closing the Doors on Pervasive Smut” to hear from experts and lawmakers about the threat P2P technology poses to unsuspecting children and young adults.


Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Florida 6th) said that while he recognized that P2P technology is “legitimate and a neutral technology with tremendous potential to do good,” it has also become a popular medium for pedophiles to use to prey on new victims.


“As with the Internet itself, it didn’t take sexual predators long to turn a good technology into an instrument of evil,” said Robert Knight, director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute, commenting on the testimony. “Congress has a responsibility to the nation’s children to take aim at those who would destroy innocence and sexually abuse kids.”


P2P software enables users to share files and to access each other’s hard drives on Internet sites. This new technology is popular among children and youth because they can download free music or images. For example, if a teenage girl wants one of Britney Spears’ newest songs, she can search a peer-to-peer site to see if another user has the song on her hard drive. Then she can copy it without ever directly contacting the user. Popular peer-to-peer sites among children and youth include KaZaA, Grokster, Morpheus and Gnutella.


However, this new technology also invites unwanted participants, such as pedophiles. If the teenage girl wanting Britney’s newest song misspells the pop star’s name in her search on a peer-to-peer site, she may have pornographic images sent to her computer instead. Pedophiles commonly use misspelled file names to send pornographic images to underage victims as a seduction tactic.


Since peer-to-peer networks allow direct access to users’ hard drives, the transferred files completely bypass filters, leaving children and youth unprotected.


Penny Nance, president of Kids First Coalition, who is also a board member of Concerned Women for America and a mother of two, testified at the hearing. She cited a recent study(report number: GAO-03-351) from the General Accounting Office (GAO) that said “kids searching with innocent keywords … would find either graphic adult pornography or child pornography 56 percent of the time.” (This report can be accessed on www.gao.gov, report number GAO-03-351.) Nance also pointed out that the GAO reported that “4 million people are on KaZaa alone at any one time and 40 percent of those are kids.”



The hearing included testimony about proposed solutions.


Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania) is sponsoring the “Protecting Kids from Peer to Peer Pornography Act” (H.R. 2885), which Concerned Women for America supports. The bill would require P2P networks to inform users of the risks and to obtain parental consent before a minor installs the software.


“The proposed rules are the minimum we should be doing to ensure that children aren’t picked off while searching for ‘The Little Mermaid’ or ‘Toy Story,’” CWA’s Knight said.


Additionally, P2P United, another trade organization, has promised to cooperate with the FBI to develop a “most wanted” list of suspected child pornography offenders on their Web sites or installation pages.


At the close of the hearing, Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-New Jersey, and a parent of four) expressed outrage over the danger posed by P2P software. He warned the trade associations that if they didn’t clean up their own sites, then federal regulation was coming.


Other panelists included representatives from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the FBI, U.S. General Accounting Office, and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Everybody may Love Raymond but I appreciate Patricia

Patricia Heaton, star of "Everybody Loves Raymond" walked out of a major Hollywood event because she was offended by the language and vulgarity being broadcast to America. I had a chance to meet her through a mutual friend while Patricia was taping a television spot. She is the national spokesperson for MAX.com, a internet service provider.

We were discussing the fact that it must have taken great courage to walk out on the Music Awards and was she afraid that she would lose standing in the community or even worse lose work over her actions.

“I was a parent before I had the job on ‘Raymond’ and I’ll be a parent long after the show is gone,” was Patricia’s response.

Heaton walks out of music awards show because of lewd tone

Cleveland Plain Dealer, 16 January 2003. Mark Dawidziak, author.

Hollywood- "Everybody Loves Raymond" star Patricia Heaton took a stand Monday night at the 30th annual American Music Awards. The Bay Village native stood up and walked out of the Shrine Auditorium, disgusted by what she described as "an onslaught of lewd jokes and off-color remarks."

A two-time Emmy winner for her portrayal of Debra Barone on "Everybody Loves Raymond," Heaton was at the awards ceremony in Los Angeles to introduce a prerecorded retrospective of executive producer Dick Clark's annual music bash. But the sitcom star grew increasingly upset with the raw and raunchy comments made by presenters, performers and the hosts for the evening, the Osbournes.

"I'm no prude, but this was such a vulgar and disgusting show," Heaton said yesterday morning after seeing her four sons off to school and before leaving for the Burbank studio where "Everybody Loves Raymond" is taped.

Known for her candor in a town where stars routinely are warned to modify and suppress opinions, Heaton rarely shies away from speaking her mind, even when her views don't conform with the Hollywood company line.

"I arrived a little late and was seated in the audience," Heaton said. "I was going to present what's called a video package - a look at 30 years of the American Music Awards. Well, what was passing for humor basically ranged from stupid to vulgar, and I just thought, 'I'm not going to be part of this.' So I walked out and said, 'Get me my car. I'm leaving.' "

A prerecorded audio clip introduced the retrospective after Heaton bolted the Shrine Auditorium.

She was not alone in noticing the harder edge to this year's American Music Awards. Show-business industry publications and reporters covering the event noted that the Osbournes and other performers kept the ABC network censors working overtime.

Print advertisements for the live awards event showed a roaring Ozzy Osbourne saying, "I'll be bleeped!" He was - often.

"The entire evening became about bleeping," said Heaton, the sister of Plain Dealer reporter Michael Heaton and the daughter of retired Plain Dealer columnist Chuck Heaton. "It was as if they were trying to become more like the MTV awards. But it's one thing if this kind of stuff is on MTV at 10 at night. It's quite another if it's on ABC at 8 o'clock. I don't know what Dick Clark was thinking."

Low points for Heaton included one performer's graphic references to three-way sex and Sharon Osbourne's joke about what she called Mariah Carey's "fake" endowments.

"I really didn't know what I was getting into," Heaton said. "I mean, there was Ryan Seacrest pulling open his co-presenter's shirt, then noticing there was a 12-year-old girl in the front row. And he says, 'Don't worry, honey, you'll have a pair of these soon.' And everybody went crazy. It felt like I was in the Roman Colosseum. As far as I'm concerned, it was an affront to anyone with a shred of dignity, self-respect and intelligence."

Heaton says she is not expecting any repercussions from the decision and certainly isn't expecting a "you'll never present in this town again" backlash.

"And if there is," she said, "who cares?

"When I was waiting for my car, one of the security people came up to me and said, 'I just want you to know how much I admire what you're doing.' So I wasn't the only one who felt this way. The camera coordinator for the awards was our camera coordinator from 'Raymond.' And when I walked on the set the next day, he started applauding."

###