Isn't it ironic that adults ask babies questions, but then look to the parents for the answers? I imagine that all parents can relate to this daily occurrence. Story: Mary and I walk into a store. It's nice to get outside to run some errands. Peace for parents. Distractions for Maddy. A well-intentioned lady either initiates contact with Maddy or responds to her flirtations. She begins to ask Maddy a series of polite questions. Are you a little boy or little girl? What's your name? How old are you? The lady awaits a response. Expecting a ten-month old to articulate answers to these questions is absurd. Of course, she gives some slight attention to the parents now. Mary and I feel obliged to enter the interaction. She's a girl. Her name is Madeleine, and she is ten-months old now. The entire time Maddy is eyeing the stranger with curiosity and suspicion. She continues to flirt, but the overt coquetry lessens. She is playing a game where the aim is not to engage with people but to simply get their attention. Once she has gained one person's attention, it's onto the next person. She is probably thinking by now, Hah, Dad. Now you have to talk to some random stranger. Gotcha! Have fun while I bat my eyelashes and lasso in another stranger! Meanwhile, Mary and I are talking to the lady now about her grandkids who live out-of-state. With an afternoon slated with things to do, I begin to think up an escape clause. I suppose women are more chatty than men and enjoy the interaction. Men enjoy interaction, but within certain parameters. Oh, well: one more day with a baby that loves to flirt with strangers. Maddy is my little "mischievous miscreant." I just find it funny that adults love asking babies questions and looking to parents for answers.
Current Affairs Commentary
Is it the role of the government and censoring groups to make decisions for individuals or to educate individuals to make their own decisions? I argue that providing the proper information and education should be the role of the government and censoring groups. What is free will for if we can't make our decisions in the end? Various news outlets (CNN, Foxnews) are reporting that activist groups are pressuring the Movie Picture Association of America (MPAA), the movie industry association that provides ratings for films, to factor not only underage smoking but all smoking into movie ratings. Underage smoking has been a rating factor for some time already. Other factors such as language, sex, alcohol and drug use are already part of the rating formula. Fifty years ago, smoking was in vogue. That cigarettes were addictive and noxious to human health were either unknown or undisclosed facts. Nowadays, at least in the United States, it's impossible to be unaware of these facts. The tobacco industry rightfully advertises the fact their products are addictive and harmful to consumers' health. Despite the information that consumers have at their fingertips, may consumers continue to indulge in smoking. Activist groups find that disconcerting and wrong. (I am not sure how they find it wrong, because there seems to be no common moral ground upon which one can base universal arguments.) I do not smoke myself. I don't condone it, but I don't believe that the government or activist groups should do anything more on the issue. Educate and inform: then, let people make their own decisions. If someone wants to enjoy cigarettes and take responsibility for the associated risks, it's his or her prerogative. Seeing the anti-smoking groups enter the fray of movie ratings upsets me because, in my opinion, there are more important moral issues that the MPAA should address instead of smoking. I believe that what we watch influences us and our behavior. However, I believe an animated film insinuating sexual intercourse (for instance, Dreamwork's The Road to El Dorado) deserves to be rated PG-13 before a film with smoking. Just my thoughts.
Quick Thoughts on Today's Gospel
Readings Today -- I have told you this in figures of speech.
Without descending to the deep bowels of the philosophy of language or theoretical linguistics, it is interesting to note how God always speaks to us on our level. When God came to earth, he chose to come in a form intelligible to us and speak in a language intelligible to us. He chose to bind himself in human form, in some mysterious way, despite the imperfections present in the human body and the human language. Christ speaks to us through the Gospels in figures of speech because that is the only way to encapsulate the infinite into the finite a semi-meaningful way. He leaves the scriptures open to interpretation and nuance. What would the scripture be otherwise? By using our language, by using figures of speech, by using parables, Christ speaks to each of us in a unique way. Our experience of Christ both in prayer and the reading of scripture becomes, then, an intimate and personal form of communication. No two people will understand God's message in exactly the same fashion. Christ reveals himself to us. He reveals himself to us through our imperfect language in order to enable us to share in the infinite Truth. The frequency and degree to which we share in this Truth are elements left to our personal choice.
