Sure. The market gives people what it wants in order to sell stuff. But the market also creates demand by offering prurient crap and telling us it is gold.
I blame us. Kevin Kevin : Tell you, I would be more inclined to agree with your diagnoses if it wasn't for the fact that mostly worthless TV has been with us for a long time. Of course, it is difficult to compare now --and many, many channels-- with then, back in the 60s with less than 10 even in large markets. But the point about then, and you are right about what some gvt programs have done to the family, is that decades ago some of the issue you cite for today's society were far less true, or not in the picture. Also, while, for sure, TV production ( like Hollywood films ) takes into account presumed audience tastes, why put all the blame on audiences ? This gets closer to my own view : "Cultural Marxists in bed with Progressives and University overseers tell us that God is dead, thus anything goes. Anything traditional is bad." Still, this is to jump the gun. That is, these people were not in positions of authority until well into the Reagan era or even the Clinton years. Even before them TV / Hollywood was producing trash. But I will concede one point, since their rise things have gotten worse. Part of it though, is found in limitations of our hallowed traditions. There is a simplistic quality to a big part of the Religious Right and, much as we may be thankful for the overall values of this heritage, some other qualities are not so hot : Like serious shortfall in critical thinking. This aren't the real issue though, not in comparison with urban culture and its by-products. Which is where the TV script writers and movie producers have traditionally come from. But that is to discuss the market, not Uncle Sam. Or mostly the market and usually not Uncle Sam. Credit where credit is due, and a lot of credit to the market for many good things. But the opposite is also the case : Blame where blame is deserved and a lot of the time the market contributes bad things. Objectivity vs Ideology, always better to side with objectivity. Billy ------------------------------------------------------------------ 11/25/2011 5:54:38 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: My response is how have we devolved to a place in which so many people are so susceptible to so much such trash? A few reasons: Empty people - created by the entitlement culture and the mental health industry. Single parent and divorced families - fueled by Great Society government failures and postmodern philosophies. Cultural Marxists in bed with Progressives and University overseers tell us that God is dead, thus anything goes. Anything traditional is bad. Fatherlessness - a creation of the Great Society and Gender Feminism, both Progressive onslaughts. Kevin Kevin : I agree absolutely that an ignorant public is perhaps the most serious of any problem that can beset a democracy. About this, though, I don't see where government is anywhere near to being the worst part of the equation. Instead it is ( mostly ) the market --the entertainment business in particular. What is on TV any given hour ? You know the answer as well as anyone else does : Primarily worthless trash. The government is not forcing the networks or cable companies to produce this stuff. Day in and day out, 24/ 7, 365 days a year. For every show really worth something, 20 or 30 that are brain pollution. Almost as if the mass media is deliberately trying to lower the IQ of the populace as much as possible. About ideology, it isn't that some part of such a philosophy isn't valid, it is the deficit in pragmatism that is part of the package. Not that, so far, it has meant terribly much, but one part of RC is coalition building. Sure, we want to win people over, but we also want to form alliances, find common ground with others on at least some issues, whatever can be worked toward not just by us but by others. Like I said, so far this is mostly academic. We have tried "outreach" from time to time, though, and if we could ever figure out how to do this effectively, we just might be on our way. The impression I get from Libertarians of all stripes is that to win in the political arena it is first necessary to convert a majority to Libertarianism. But here it is, at least 40 years since modern Libertarianism was founded, and maybe, just maybe, 15 % of the population has been won over. While that is far more than 1 % or 2 % do you really see this ever reaching as much as 20 % or so ? Reason why I say this is because Ron Paul won't be around forever and except for him who else can actually rally people ? If Libertarians did try to enter a coalition with whom would it be ? So far they have worked within the GOP, like Paul, but even there it is a tough sell. And Wall Street isn't buying, and social conservatives are anything but favorably disposed. As I see the situation, anyway. Billy -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
