[TheForge] Shortcut Sword? [LONGISH] even longer

Wed Nov 5 21:55:06 2003

Folks start talking about the evils of tv and protection from cheap labor
and I see big brother getting bigger.  That's my paranoia, trying to stave
off such rationalizations when the Republicrats keep making new rules that
decide for us, when people are capable of deciding for themselves.  The
discussion seems to center around being self sufficient/independent.  But
the contradiction is an underlying theme of making more rules to fix
somethign thats just a matter of choice.  Who wouldn't buy steel that's 50
cents/lb less, don't curse the ------? for beating us at our own game,
unless your willing to pay the difference.  I don't even see how someone
taking heroin recreationally is at all criminal any more so than someone
being a couch potato, as long as they perform some service to society and
pay their own way.  Hell, we even forget the value of a bad example in our
politically correct times.

Have a sister that romanticizes the european socialist model that
criminalizes working over 32-+ hours a week, while she works 50-60 a week
here.  Have no idea what the crime would be there.  To quote/paraphrase
Wendell Berry, 'we despise what we romanticize.'

The movie from the mid '70s "The Groove Tube" stands as my vital reference
to TV, I'll have to look at Jerry Mander's arguments some day.  But I don't
think society is any better or worse off for tv.  The failure of the
progressive argument is that human nature won't change, we're not
perfectable. Tv may be another filter to seperate the wheat from the chaff,
like drugs, alcohol, sex, or any variety of things that can be indulged in,
or not, a little or a lot depending on the individual choice.

I agree we're judged by our actions, not good intentions, or critical
thinking.  But I have a hard time believing we're all subject to the Great
Compromise.  I guess after a brief stint in college ROTC I saw how hard it
was to get 10-50 people that all agreed, in principal, to actually do the
same thing... I knew there weren't 12 bearded old men, masons, or
rothchilds, manipulating humanity.

But I do recall hearing about TV signals that are years old showing up as
weak signals on sets, supposedly bounced off of planets or atmoshphere to
return to earth... and wondered about the effect of all that radiation
bouncing through us, with just the right implant, who'd need
TV?!?!?dododododododo (that's the 'Twilight Zone' theme, there, adjust my
aluminum foil hat...)

Kevin

PS Andy, come Ricmond, I'd love to buy you a beer, or cup of coffee, but I'm
afraid we'd have to both talk at the same time to get out by closing time ;)
and never mind if Bob Rackers or Ralph Sproul were along!!!!  the
beer/coffee would be running out our nose in no time, fer kicks'n'giggles,
that is, and all we could do is go with it.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Andy Vida
Sent: Wednesday, 05 November, 2003 11:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Yak: Re: [TheForge] Shortcut Sword? [LONGISH]

Kevin Donahoe wrote:
>
> ol' Demon Buddha writ; I will not allow a television in my house.
>
> Seems to me that TV is simply another tool.

	In the purest sense, I will not disagree with you, but there
	are some serious caveats.  First, one cannot take such a
	statement in vacuo.  It must be made within some meaningful
	and relevant context, and so therefore as stated it is not
	worth much.  It is much like saying "heroin is just another
	tool".  Without specific context, the statement is in effect
	meaningless.  Give it the context of use by a medical doctor
	to control the agony of a terminal cancer patient and it
	takes on a very true and good meaning.  In the context of a
	dumbass teen, whose head is firmly ensconced in his rectum,
	a strong falsehood becomes the most apparent quality of that
	particular assertion, unless perhaps you are some proverbial
	behind-the-scenes power broker using such "tools" to keep some
	population neutralized; context is not necessarily apparent
	or simple :)

	Anyone interested in knowing more about TV might wish to read
	a book titled "Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television"
	by an author with what I suspect is a pseudonym "Jerry Mander".
	It's been at least ten years since I read this work, but he makes
	some interesting arguments for completely removing TV from one's
	life.  They are not perfect arguments, mind you, but good enough
	to provoke some serious cogitation on the subject.  One argument
	is based on the assertion that the most fundamental problem with
	television has little to do with content.  It asserts that the
	most basic trouble with TV lies in the technology itself in the
	context of its effect on the human brain.  Interesting stuff, and
	if true (I did not confirm the cited studies, though now that I
	think of it, I would actually like to), then TV really is pretty
	bad stuff.  Bear in mind that this is an instrument that effects
	your perceptions; that much cannot be argued.

> Reminds me of a fellow I knew
> that refused to use socket tools because they were for sissies, hu?

	It may remind you of that, but such is not my position.

> Better
> to teach critical thinking and judicious use of the tool.

	Just remember that one could think very critically about that .45
	sitting on  the coffee table.  Such thinking will not help Johnny
	one epsilon if he still picks it up and blows his brains out.
	I hear so much speak of "critical thinking" these days.  First,
	it is not sufficient for anything I would even remotely term as
	sane and good living.  It is only a necessary condition.  Second,
	the definition of the term will greatly and widely color the
	affects of its application in everyday lives.  And third, in the
	context of the first two points, critical thinking is of absolutely
	no value whatsoever without proper action in its pursuit, and THAT
	my good man is where I firmly believe we as people have become
	hamstrung in this early twenty first century.  We often see what is
	"wrong" with things (usually political) yet we do not seem to
	recognize the right path towards solution.  A prime example of this
	is the old saw about "working within the system" when something
	horrible is being done to some group, whether small or the entire
	nation.  We have been "working within the system" for a long time
	and I cannot think of a single instance where doing so has yielded
	beneficial fruit for regular people.  It's the classic definition
	of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
	different results.  DUH.

	One counter example, and this is off the  top of my VERY rusty
	memory:  In something like 1947 there was some political nonsense
	imposed upon the people of some Southern town, maybe Georgia or SC.
	The people were unhappy and made their case (within the system)
	to the authorities (mayor??).  The response was essentially "you
	do as WE say, BOY, and be smart about it".  As I recall, the men
	of the town got their firearms, marched on city hall and let the
	authorities know in no uncertain terms that either the nonsense
	ceases forthwith or the crowd would proceed to execute those
	respo9nsible right there, right then.  As I recall, the offending
	ornance(s) met with instantaneous repeal.  It is an example of
	people who were willing and able to do what they had to in order
	to resecure their liberty and I applaud such action.

> As I recall, the
> kids at college away from home for the first time that got the most puking
> drunk were from the prohibition homes, without any background, exposure or
> experience in responsible alcohol use.  Forbidden fruit and all that.

	Well, I don't think TV will disappear any time soon, so we don't
	much have to worry about that.  As for who gets the drunkest and
	why, I doubt it is often as simple as you seem to be making it out
	to be.  I was one of those kids and I was never denied the use of
	alcohol, even as a child, within some reasonable limits such as not
	getting all liquored up and going to school or driving to
	California from NYC...  that sort of thing.  But a glass of wine
	with dinner was no big deal, even when I was 12.  I drank for
	other reasons, wholly unrelated.

	Some things are harmful.  Some things are harmful no matter how
	one may try to mitigate it.  Just because TV doesn't kill or maim
	people in an immediately and physically gruesome manner, it does
	not automatically follow that it is of no harm.  What if
	Jerry Mander's first argument, that the trouble lies in the basic
	nature of the technology itself, is in fact true; that there is
	no mitigation, no reformation of content imaginable that will
	remove the inherent dangers?  Note that there doesn't seem to have
	been a whole lot of research money granted to study this.  Is this
	because TV is so wholly and tacitly assumed to be safe that nobody
	even considers the technology's effect on human organisms?  I
	would bet so.  But consider this: if people in positions of
	knowledge and power knew that it was in fact hazardous, do you
	think they would be moving for that technology's removal?
	Just a little something to consider before dozing off for the
	night. :)
_______________________________________________
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
theforge mail list group photo site is
http://www.photoaccess.com
Login:  [email protected]
password:  anvil
___________