Peace, or pieces?

As we approach Christmas, which celebrates of the birth of the Prince of Peace, I am visiting family deep in the mountains of Colorado with only intermittent access to the web.  I appreciate that this “season of peace” is a time of great tension for many (witness the shopping malls), but I also like to think that it is a time when many people do take time to reflect on the meaning of “peace”, within themselves and their community, and to exhibit generosity and kindness to others.

While discussing the nature and meaning of “peace” with my family, my sister-in-law (a former human resources specialist, very wise, and an excellent reader of people), drops this insight: “Aggression is in our nature: all people have a well of aggression that exhibits itself in different ways”.

Those that recognize it within themselves can learn to channel it in constructive ways, such as sports, martial arts, or business pursuits. Others expend it in destructive ways, such as gossip, politicking, undermining of others or open violence. The people who are most dangerous and the most vicious, to me, are those that don’t recognize it in themselves, because then the aggression is left to exhibit itself in uncontrolled manners. It is one reason that I have never trusted “pacifists”: they don’t know themselves and the evil of which they are capable.

I am struck by this because it seems to explain so much about the absolute venom we find in political discourse today, especially on the web. Perhaps anonymity allows this well of aggression to be expressed without perceived consequences. There are people who need to hate, for whom hatred is as orgasmic as sex.

What do you think? Is she on to something?

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    I’ve made it a goal in my life to understand body language, 80% of human communication when combined with voice tones. That knowledge is also useful in communicating to others using modified body language to generate a different impression.
     
    I instinctively knew how to calm people down when I was a teenager, using hand gestures. That’s because I disliked confrontation and would seek out ways to avoid it.
     
    Christians have a sentiment that if you have sins, you should not criticize other people for theirs and proscribe punishment for them. In my view, if you cannot control yourself, you should not be telling other people what to do.
     
    The Left aren’t real pacifists. They are fake. They con you into thinking they are pacifists. If you put a so called anti-war pacifist into a room with a violent individual, that individual will end up attacking the pacifist. Not because the individual had this idea in their head to begin with, but because the anti-war pacifist generates enough anger and wannabe violent signals that the truly violent individual picks up on it and it starts to resonate. However, if a person that is used to violence is put in a room with a truly pacific individual, that person will calm down rather than get more angry and out of control. There are exceptions, but if a person sees no benefit to using violence, he won’t usually use it. Unless something makes him lose control. Que anti-war activists. It’s also why anti-war activists, when they get together, are bothersome roaches and violent rioters. They stoke each other up. They goad each other on. The atmosphere is charged with violence and mayhem. People pick up on that, just by being there. In comparison a Tea Party rally has kids and grandmas and such because it has a more festive or calmer atmosphere. Whereas if you see a kid at an anti-war protest, it’s like the Iranian blooding ceremony where they cut the head of infants and bath in their blood while parading in the streets.
     
    It’s a simple matter of human hierarchies. With monkeys, if a monkey at the middle of the ladder feels frustrated, he’ll take it out on the monkeys below him in position. For the monkeys above him in status, he behaves well or obediently. This is just like how insecure and childish people behave. When you slap them with real power and authority, they don’t “speak truth to power”. They grovel on their knees and kiss up. Then when the leader goes out of the room, the person that was on his knees before, now gets up and starts slapping around his subordinates, secretaries, women, and so forth. It’s a sign of weakness, stress, and lack of discipline. It’s the same with Islam. It’s the same with anti-war activists. It’s the same with journalists. When interviewing Saddam, they were kissing up. When interviewing Bush, they felt courageous enough to overstep themselves. When interviewing Obama, they were kissing up again. The positions are nominally the same in terms of power, so why the difference in behavior? Solely because they were afraid Obama and Saddam would do something to them while they felt confident Bush wouldn’t if he didn’t like their attitude.
     

    The internet insulates people from consequences, verbal and physical. They feel more free to act. For disciplined individuals and those of strong heart, mind, and soul, this liberates them to help others or improve themselves. For weak foolish and idiotic mortals, this frees them to do more stupid stuff than they ever could have in RL. It allows them to abuse and terrorize more people.
     
    True peace derives from being harmonious with yourself and with your environment, including others. It means reducing conflict and injury, both for yourself in order to prolong your life as well as avoid creating it amongst others (subordinates too). The Chinese when applying this principle, will even lie to you and tell you that there is good news, when in fact the news was horribly bad or upsetting. They do so in order to remove social friction and see it as politeness. Westerners, of course, don’t see it that way. Because our society rested upon the individual knowing the truth and acting in accordance with the truth. It’s a matter of individual duty, not right. However, the whole point of that was for harmony. It is different for other cultures because we started from different points, addressing the same things, thus we ended up with solutions that worked for us but other people came up with stuff that did the same but were entirely different.
     
    I would not call this aggression, because there are more things than simply one impulse motivation people in human society.
     

  2. says

    http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/tsa-satire-and-female-make-up/
     
    Two things I found of interest recently at youtube. The second video, the presentation by the woman, mentions some of what you said, Danny. About not liking people who are needlessly negative in their criticisms of others via innuendo and rumor mongering.
     
    @7:20 is when it starts.
     
    There are people who need to hate, for whom hatred is as orgasmic as sex.
     
    This may simply be particular to me, but I find those kinds of people easy to deal with. They are very much predictable in their actions and motivations. Predictability means vulnerability to me. You can maneuver them however you wish, if you know how.

  3. says

    I absolutely agree that there are people–and a nontrivial number of them–for whom “hate is as orgasmic as sex,” and such people tend to be attracted to collectivist political movements.
     
    Sebastian Haffner, who grew up in Germany between the wars, compared the characters of a Nazi acquaintance and a Communist acquaintance:
    “Both had an ideal of ‘community’ and ‘community spirit’. For both, jazz music, fashion magazines…in other words the world of glamour and ‘easy come, easy go’, were a red rag. Both had a secret liking for terror, in a more humanistic garb for the one, more nationalistic for the other. As similar views make for similar faces, they both had a certain stiff, thin-lipped, humourless expression and, incidentally, the greatest respect for each other.”
     
     

  4. kali says

    I have no particular insights into the nature of aggression, but I found “Anger: the Misunderstood Emotion”, by Carol Tavris, enlightening–especially when it comes to the almost incoherent level of anger in politics these days. Tavris argued that ventilating, the free expression of anger, actually inflames it, and with every indulgence, makes the recourse to it easier. Controlling it, on the other hand, reduces it.
     
    My own observation is that people gin up their anger in order to burn away uncertainty, to give themselves the vigor that doubts and second-guessing and a relativistic philosophy leech away.
     
    Anger also gets attention, makes people who are asking uncomfortable things back off, and allows the angry one feel like the star of their own drama.  It’s a decent reward for the simple act of giving up the manners your mother taught you.

  5. suek says

    Don’t have a source, but somewhere along the line, I’ve read that there is usually – as in virtually always – a link between fear and anger.  That is, that anger is the result of fear, and that fear manifests itself as either fight or flight.  If you remove flight, you end up with fight.
     
    I’m not sure it’s always true – I think that some learn to use that connection as a means of controlling others though, so maybe it’s still true but in a different sense.

  6. says

    I’ve noticed that behavioral scientists use the term “aggression” but it encompasses a lot of things in the animal and human world.
     
    For example, self-defense is termed aggression. So is attacking. So is blood frenzy named aggression as well. But they are critically not the same thing. There’s a real line between assertive behavior and aggressive behavior. The distinctions, however, are covered up in the science to laymen.
     
    Another result of public education standards, perhaps.
     
     

  7. says

    For humans there is a strong link between fear and anger. It’s mostly seen in the chest thumping, anti social exchanges.
     
    For animals, it’s hard to say whether they even have anger. It might be the same emotion as fear. Regardless, in the animal pack hierarchy, anger is treated the same as fear. Meaning, it is treated as a sign of weakness or as a prelude to an all out attack. When animals get afraid, they’ll try to puff themselves up to deter an attack and if you get too close, they’ll try to attack you, if they can’t get away or have babies they can’t move. This is different from the predatory instincts that animals attack when they are going for prey or food. It’s why humans feeding crocs and bears are very dangerous. It confuses animals into relating humans with food, rather humans with DANGER/FEAR.
     
    Pack leaders and herd leaders are neither afraid nor angry. If they are, they soon lose their social status and respect, and get replaced by something better.
     
    Anger amongst humans is commonly a result of frustration or a feeling of having their survival chances lowered. It’s related to fear but a certain kind of fear. Fear of losing status, and thus eventually resources. Rather than, say, fear of falling down a cliff and smashing your skull into the rocks. People also become angry at injustices, because it is indirectly impacting them. If they live by the rules of justice for their own benefit and the benefit of the community, then they know that these rules will evaporate if they don’t enforce it upon rulebreakers. Thus the anger at injustice, relatively most common amongst men, rather than women.
     
    For kids, you often get the response that “it isn’t fair” and they get angry. It’s a matter of perception, that the resources a human needs to survive is unavailable due to the actions of another person. This anger serves as a motivation for them to correct that imbalance and get the resources (food) they need to survive. People also get angry at themselves, but usually only at mistakes and actions they can no longer correct. People who make a mistake and can correct it, don’t get angry at themselves. They, in fact, feel calmer than if somebody else made a mistake and they had to correct it.
     
    If you recall from Obama’s “they behaved stupidly” comment, Prof Gates was angry. But was he angry because he was confident a black LibProg like him had nothing to fear from the police or did he become verbally abusive in public because he was afraid of the police?
     
     
     
     

  8. says

    The people you see in bars or parties that get angry the easiest, are the ones most insecure and afraid.
     
    The most dangerous individuals are the calm ones, the ones making jokes and smiling when they are presented with physical intimidation. They enjoy it. They enjoy it because they are not stressed or afraid. The method for detecting a bluff is perhaps not easily described but it exists. You can clearly see, with some simple training, to determine whether somebody is bluffing or not in a confrontation.
     
     

  9. SADIE says

    ….a link between fear and anger.

    This article certainly links the two emotions and should raise several others as well.

    This Christmas in Bethlehem, the cross has been banned from souvenirs for tourists and pilgrims in the Holy Land.

    Meanwhile, on the occasion of the celebrations for Christmas, the Israeli military has ordered troops deployed in the occupied Palestinian territories to facilitate the passage of Christian pilgrims at checkpoints.

    http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Christmas-in-Bethlehem:-the-cross-banished-from-souvenirs-shops-20318.html

  10. SADIE says

    DQ, good question and this is the answer and I guess the price of being Catholic in Bethlehem.  Robert Spencer gives the stats.
     
    Samir Qumsieh, journalist and director of the Catholic television station Al-Mahed Nativity TV in Bethlehem, said: “I want to launch a campaign to urge people not to buy these products – he says – because the removal of the cross is an intimidation against Christians, it is like saying that Jesus was never crucified.”…
    This dhimmi journalist blames Israel, but Israel is actually aiding Christian pilgrims:
     
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/bethlehem-souvenir-sellers-stop-selling-crosses-for-fear-of-offending-muslims.html

  11. Michael Adams says

    I read someplace recently, (Recently is coming to mean a lot more years ago than it used to mean.) that scientists had discovered that stupid people like to get angry, because there is not so much going on upstairs, and they enjoy the stimulation. I’d always known it, but it was nice to have it confirmed.
     
    Don’t read more into this than the bare facts, but the Nazis were big donors to pacifist organizations in the thirties. They liked to weaken our resolve to fight them, using our pacifism against us. I am old enough to remember, later on,  western movies and television programs, which often had a pacifist theme, or even a pacifist character who was persuaded to resist evil.  A good many of the latter came out right after the Germans invaded “the Motherland.”  (Lillian Hellman’s despairing cry in June, 1941.) There were more of them in the fifties, in direct competition with the more patriotic ones.
     
    People don’t like me to mention this, but Rod Serling did a fair number of Twilight Zone episodes with a pacifist theme.  A big part of the “golden age of television” was that it was the first flowering of Leftist propaganda on television. Later, when anti-McCarthy hysteria had eradicated most of the last patriots from Hollywood, it all became Leftist agit-prop, but somehow, the age was no longer golden.

  12. Gringo says


    Sadie, Samir Qumsieh has a cousin Mazin who has taken a rather different approach. Mazin Qumsiyeh is a very active anti-Israel activist. The following quotation from Voltaire.net.org gives a short exposition on perhaps Mazin’s greatest propaganda coup at the Davos Forum five years ago,  albeit a coup that ended in failure.
     
    The annual Global Agenda Magazine, in its edition during the 2006 Davos Forum, published a political article by genetics specialist Mazin Qumsiyeh calling on the international community to boycott Israel in order to put a stop to the apartheid regime imposed on the Palestinian people. The scandal that stemmed out of such a proposition forced the staff of the World Economic Forum to immediately withdraw the distribution of the magazine and extend apologies to Israeli leaders. We reproduce the full article up next: [article follows in link]
     
    I happened to attend one of Mazin’s speeches in the US. Mazin has spent about half his life in the US. He got a little off the narrative when in talking about his family, he mentioned that his grandfather, before the Six Day War, had told his children to get out of the West Bank. The reason for getting out of the West Bank follows. Mazin’s grandfather informed his children that as Christians, they would always be passed over for promotions in the job force in favor of Muslims. Some of Mazin’s family has some sense. It just bypassed Mazin.
     
    http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/03/pa-closes-only-christian-tv-station/index.shtml Good info on both Samir and Mazin [Note that the surname has variations in its Latin alphabet spelling.]
     
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article135308.html Contains the article that got published, then deleted, at the 2006 Davos Forum.

  13. Gringo says

    Michael Adams:
    Don’t read more into this than the bare facts, but the Nazis were big donors to pacifist organizations in the thirties. They liked to weaken our resolve to fight them, using our pacifism against us. I am old enough to remember, later on,  western movies and television programs, which often had a pacifist theme, or even a pacifist character who was persuaded to resist evil.
     
    I don’t know enough to comment on German funding of pacifist organizations. You mentioned postwar movies with pacifst themes. I would like to point out that Dalton Trumbo was both a prominent  Hollywood screenwriter and commie who before June 22, 1941, wrote two anti-war books, Johnny Got His Gun and The Remarkable Andrew. After Hitler invaded the USSR on the above date, he stopped printing of Johnny Got His Gun and also referred inquires about it to the FBI.
     
    How his political beliefs influenced his screenwriting, I leave to the experts. His political beliefs certainly influenced those two books.
     
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Trumbo

  14. SADIE says

    Gringo


    …genetics specialist Mazin Qumsiyeh
     
    After reading the links you provided (thank you ever so much) it’s apparent that the Qumsiyeh cousins are genetically challenged in subsequent generations. Solomonia is one of the sites I have recently added to my daily reading material.
     
    I anxiously await to hear the how and why of your attendance at Mazin’s speech.




     
     

  15. Gringo says

    Sadie, Solomonia has an interesting article [cross-posted from another blog] on Howard Zinn. Link is  below. I hadn’t realized there was a Pete Seeger-Howard Zinn connection 70 years ago.  Birds of a feather and all that.
    The how and the why? Curiosity. But the cat lives. I suggest  you follow some of the Solomonia links on Mazin.
     
    One time at some downtown rally I met someone whose parents. following the orders of their superiors, had left Palestine during the 1948 war. He was married to a non-Arab American. When I questioned him, he admitted that if his family was to get compensation for the house his parents left behind, that Sephardic Jews in Israel should receive compensation for the property THEIR FAMILIES had left behind in Muslim countries. He had no interest in returning to Israel. I should have asked him how his family didn’t end up in a refugee camp. Perhaps like Edward Said, his family had money.
     
    http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/01/original-zinn-hillel/

  16. Danny Lemieux says

    YM…I thought that I would get you to jump into this discussion! Interesting comments on “anger”.
    Can forms of anger be categorized? For example, the fight or flight reactions may translate into one form of anger. The anger and resentment nurtured by years of unrequited feelings of entitlement or narcissism might be another form of anger. The masturbatory anger of people who “lack much upstairs”, as Mike Adams put it, is another form of anger altogether. Some forms of anger, I propose, are beneficial if they help you survive (in combat or self-defense, for example).
    I only focus on “categorization” of anger because, perhaps, if we name it, we can control it. For example, by publicly calling out the “anger” of the anarchist breaking windows in the UK or Berkeley of tuition hikes as a “narcissistic outburst”, can we humiliate them back under the rocks from whence they crawled?

    I agree with all the comments made regarding pacifism, by the way (David Foster – I went immediately to Amazon and order my copy of Haffner’s book). I have never been able to bring myself to respect pacifists, although I have not always been able to articulate why. I know that, as a young man, the movie “The Culpepper Cattle Company” made a huge impact on me. I, too, have viewed pacifists as war-enablers rather than peace makers.

  17. SADIE says

    Gringo
     
    Thanks for urging me to read all the links at Solomonia.
     
    In March I had read about the shut down of the TV station, but did not recall reading Samir’s name. The article on the Andover/Mazin ‘show’ was a stark reminder of just how clueless or just how insensitive the principal was by booking Mazin -it was a relief to find out that the audience was NOT. It reminded me of the Zinn link when he was called out and questioned about his military service by an attendee in the audience.
     
    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by the level of stupidity and ignorance, but it never seems to lesson the thud. They continue to live in a hermetically sealed vacuum in some distant place and time in their little minds deserving of a prize – 1st place in brain atrophy.
     
     

  18. suek says

    A bit off topic, but relating back to the liberal influences in Hollywood.
     
    We watched most of “A Christmas Carol” with Patrick Stuart as Scrooge the other night.  He does a very good job…but never before have I been so aware of the theme of “poor people are good” and “business people are bad” theme.  Now to be honest, we didn’t stay up to the end – it went on till 11PM(they had one of the _children’s_ movies on last night…the Grinch?.. from 9-11!  my son tells me my problem is that no one expects to watch when shows are aired – “everybody” TIVOs the shows they want to watch and then show them at their convenience.  I’m just a technological retarded person, I guess) so maybe they remedied it by making Scrooge a good guy who still gets to keep most of his wealth, but I suspect he had to give away a major portion to get to that blessing!  I suppose the theme was always there – inherent in Dickens’ writings – or maybe I just wasn’t quite as aware of the social attitude, thinking it more of a personal failing of Scrooge as an individual, or maybe they just gave it a liberal twist to this particular production – I don’t know.  But I definitely sensed it.
     
    I also know that Dickens was a social activist of sorts, but never had fit him into the liberal-conservative perspective.
     
    He’d definitely be a Democrat leftie if he lived today!!

  19. says

    Given that this is Christmas Day, I thought it’d be woth to mention that Jesus Christ was a real pacifist. Meaning, he was someone who was both calm under tension and also could get other people to calm down. If you know Arabs or those of the tribal mentality personally, you know that when they start on about honor, face, family vendettas, and what not, there’s no stopping them. This is true even now, the so called “post-modern world” where “history has ended”. Imagine what it was like in Christ’s time, before 50 AD. Yet he was able to create a localized time of peace in such a troubled region of the world. How else do you explain the fact that that part of the Middle East was calm and peaceful when Christ was historically alive, and that after his death, it erupted into multiple blood cleansing and mass executions? Coincidence can only explain things so far.
     
    I like mentioning it because I don’t think most people who know talk about it. And it’s a good thing to check up yourself to determine the truth of my claims. In all the arguments I have seen on Christ, what he is or what good Christianity is for, that little historical time issue has never been mentioned in my presence.
     
    Can forms of anger be categorized?
    To address Danny’s fundamental interest: emotions and thoughts are only of real substance and import to the person having them. The ones generating them, are the only ones that can categorize them. External observers can put a label on it, but I don’t think it’s getting them closer to the truth of reality. It may be convenient, as much of human actions are intended for, but fundamentally different from seeking the best, the greatest, or the most beautiful in existence.

    I have never preferred labeling an emotion separate from its context or a behavior separate from its Aristotelian virtue ethics. I remember at times feeling paralyzing fear that negated all willingness to move. I remember feeling rage so intense that the internal mental pain could only be chilled by overriding it with the physical pain of trying to smash my fist through a light wooden door. I have not put a name to them, apart from determining the cause and effect. In the few times that I have been in physical jeopardy or had a perception that I was in danger, fear or anger were not part of my internal self perspective. Thus I often say and believe strongly that the fight and flight mental perspective of a survivor using the lizard brain is fundamentally different from a person using emotional thinking (the monkey).

    For example, by publicly calling out the “anger” of the anarchist breaking windows in the UK or Berkeley of tuition hikes as a “narcissistic outburst”, can we humiliate them back under the rocks from whence they crawled?


    As a goal of human interaction or policy, I believe it won’t work that way. The only effective means by which to control such people are either they desire and obtain the means to control themselves or somebody else physically present does it for them. I can’t speak for others, but surely other people have noticed that certain people they have met in their lives have a certain presence that tends to mute the normally out of control sorts when they come into nearness. Whatever we say to them or about them, will not change anything critical. It’s not a language the rioters understand. The internet and the media are places where the word dominates. Because there is no physical presence, you cannot restrain others or be yourself restrained. There is no voice tone. No body language. No “look”. No “mood” even, at least not by first glance. The Left are notoriously good at wordsmithing and wordplay, thus they have dominated these sphere of events for awhile. Before the advent of the internet, they were formulating Communist propaganda sheets. They formed the Abe Lincoln brigade to send American soldiers to fight against the Fascists in Spain. In reality, no American came back alive, because they were put under the control and order of Soviet commisars who used them up like slave troops. Or like Russian army recruits, actually, if you have watched Stalingrade. With the advent of the university higher education bubble, Main Sewer Media propaganda, and the internet, it’s just not very effective to describe a rioter in a way that it would make them reconsider their actions.

    People learn the fastest through their bodies. Whether that means getting slammed into the wall or being physically restrained. They learn the fastest through the body’s 5 senses. Simply reading words is not enough for most people. Especially not given the opponents we face. It’s why nobody really convinces anybody on the internet. If they could be, they’d already be. Using words alone we cannot humiliate them in the eyes of their peers or even of themselves.

    Only action will do that. Only body learning will do that. Words or even speaking, cannot. It is too weak of a sensory input. It can be overridden by rationalizations or denial or group think.

    The relationship I see with emotions and consequences is that listed in Aristotle’s virtue ethics. The virtuous individual feels anger when he witnesses injustice. And is spurred on to correct it, without being too reckless or to timid in the process: moderation. All the emotions in human existence can be used for good. It can also be used for evil. It all depends on the person in question feeling them. If the person is of good character and integrity, his emotions will lead to the Light. If not, then to the Darkness they shall tread. Some have lost the Way for all eternity and will never steer themselves back on the rightful path.
    I have never been able to bring myself to respect pacifists, although I have not always been able to articulate why. I know that, as a young man, the movie “The Culpepper Cattle Company” made a huge impact on me.

    I wonder how you would explain it now, given your updated life experiences? Also I would like to know how the movie in question impacted you so highly.

  20. SADIE says

    …“everybody” TIVOs the shows they want to watch and then show them at their convenience.
     
    Timely comment. The “everybody” includes the networks, I am too tech challenged to understand the how it’s done, but when you TIVO they know and they know if you have watched the commercials or fast forwarded. Realizing that most fast forward past the commercials, the commercials themselves have become more animated and visual with less dialogue. I find it very creepy that ‘Big Brother’ is disguised as the ‘little box’ near the television.

  21. says

    I don’t like tv expressly because the commercial breaks make it impossible to sustain dramatic tension and quality.
     
    I prefer the Japanese or Germany way of putting all the commercials at the middle, with appropriate sponsor acknowledgements made in the opening of the show, like radio does.
     
    This dramatically cuts down the BS you see when there are 6 commercial breaks in a 30 minute segment.

  22. SADIE says

    Ymar, I think the breakdown is 18 minutes of programming each half hour. Worthy of an entire and separate post was the big lie and swindle of cable television, which should have omitted the annoying interruptions and has instead turned the pregnant pause into what feels like a full out labor pains. Because of the digitalization of the signal, cable is no longer a luxury, but a necessity if you want to watch something beyond the crapola offered by the basic axis of evil alphabet soup stations.
     
    DQ, as a sighted person, I have trouble discerning exactly what they’re trying to sell. Television rarely has my undivided attention.

  23. says

    Japanese tv shows are comparably 24 minutes, from Open song to End song. For a 30 minute timeslot, that would account for 6 minutes of commercial in the middle. This provides more freedom for the program producer and the advertiser because they can purchase premium sponsorship when the producer makes the opening credit song contain the trademark mention of the company in question. Because it is repeated every episode, the company wishing advertisement knows that if there is X number of episodes, they are paying for X number of mentions which people pay more attention to because the Japanese like to create eye catching and ear catching songs for every different show in existence. The producer is able to fit more story and detail work given the larger time share.
     
    If you want to watch anything on tv or cable, you can basically download it off the internet.

  24. says

    Sadie, I got plenty of tv show and movie recommendations from overseas if you get too sick of the Hollywood stuff and want a recommendation. Just give me a genre plus a theme or type of experience you are looking for and I’m reasonably sure I can find something that fits the bill.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply