Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, January 12, 2007
Brent Bozell :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Ancient Problem of TV Violence
by Brent Bozell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


How ancient is the concern over violence on television and its effects on society? Crack open a cobwebbed copy of Lyndon Johnson's National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence from 1969, where it reads, "Public concern for violence in entertainment television programming has been with us since at least 1954." In other words, go back to the days when people were still using their first TV sets.

You'd also discover reading this report that even back then, the TV industry execs were trying to duck and weave out of any public concerns. They claimed there was no research into TV violence, claimed they would do some and then dragged their feet for 10 years. They claimed it was not a researchable problem, then under pressure, pledged to spend money on research. They also solemnly pledged to Congress they would reduce TV violence.

The report said network representatives promised a reduction in televised violence to the Senate subcommittee on juvenile delinquency in 1954, in 1961 and in 1963. But the Senate staff found the quantity of violent programs increased as much as 300 percent between 1954 and 1961.

Sound familiar? For anyone interested in this issue, it should. We've gone around the merry-go-round on this countless times, so many times that today, the amount of research on the negative effects of TV violence could block an interstate highway. And yet the barons of shock-and-awe TV continue to pile ever more trauma and gore.

The latest landmark (or landfill) in the TV world is the arrival of HBO's pay-cable mob drama "The Sopranos" on the basic-cable channel A&E, where now virtually anyone with cable can watch. How carefully is this show with mature-themed sex, violence and profanity vetted for general audiences? TV critics wailed that any snip is messing with the "artistic integrity," but the Hollywood Reporter reassured fans that "a few judicious snips to a series can be made without snuffing its profane soul."

The early word is that the makers of "The Sopranos" prepared their Mafia-milking cash cow for general audiences by double-shooting scenes with clothed strippers and lots of uses of the word "freaking." Still, the eye-opening violence is pretty much left untouched. "Have no fear, mayhem fans," cooed the TV critic of the San Diego Union-Tribune, since A&E is "letting them act like gangsters and talk like dorks."

The "quality" controllers at A&E have told critics that extraordinarily grisly sequences, such as someone's brains being splattered all over a wall, have been shortened by a second or two. Who says these networks don't have standards?

The arrival of "The Sopranos" marks the ongoing trend, wherein ultra-violent, ultra-sexual programming made for pay-cable channels oozes into basic-cable syndication. It began with "Sex and the City" reruns on TBS and now includes "Six Feet Under" on Bravo. And with basic cable now sliding into the muck, it is dragging over-the-air broadcast TV with it. Reruns of the vile bad-cop drama "The Shield" have gravitated to the new CW network. All of television is sliding into the violence swamp.

Broadcast TV has grown more violent in recent years, thanks in part to the gore in "CSI" and its different versions and imitations. A new study by the Parents Television Council finds that the 2005-2006 TV season was the most violent in recent history. In fact, there has been a 75 percent increase in primetime TV violence since the 1998 season. Even TV critics have noticed, calling the new trend "horrific on purpose" and finding the body count "rivals that of a war zone."

Violence has increased in every hour of primetime, and it's especially graphic in the last hour. Imagine children watching the episode of NBC's "Law & Order: SVU" where the detectives raid the house of a serial pedophile and find a series of dead children lying in pools of blood. Or try the episode of NBC's "Crossing Jordan" where one of the doctors is held at gunpoint to accomplish the mission of removing a 12-year-old's testicles.

Some scenes just seem designed for maximum creepiness. One episode of the forensic drama "Bones" on Fox had the heroine finding a mummified corpse. To get the fingerprints, she cut a hand off, soaked it in water, and peeled the skin off like a glove and put it on her hand.

This isn't what they worried about in 1954. I suspect there wasn't a leader in this field who predicted that television would ever feature something as noxious as what is to be found on television sets today.

But what they did predict was the slippery slope of cultural decay, and that's precisely what's happening before our eyes. Even worse, the slide hasn't been halted, even slowed. It is accelerating. Where are we headed? It's a frightening thought.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Headed to Hell

The Hell-o-vision shows are just an outward sign of the wickedness that resides in men hearts.

Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

If there weren’t a demand to see all the ungodly, wicked, and sinful, “ENTERTAINMENT” the network industry wouldn’t produce the quantity of filth that it is increasingly being broadcasted and consumed.

Some statistics that were taken says that approximately 85% of Americans are Christians. The LIES people tell. A true Christian is a born-again follower of Jesus Christ that has repented (turned from their sin), live their lives according to the scriptures abiding in Christ. Read my article, True Christians at: http://www.actioncross.net.

Someone needs to tell the truth which is that all men were born sinners and need to truly repent or perish. Unfortunately this nation not only produces a lot of violence, wicked, and ungodly “entertainment” for itself but it promotes it throughout the world.

Jesus said: Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

The wages of sin is death in hell’s fire but the gift of God to those who repent, obey, and believe is eternal life through Jesus Christ “ONLY”.

Look to the Philippines
My wife is from the Philippines. As recently as 1998 she went home and things were as they always were. Obedient children who played outside all day, helped their parents with the chores, and were just good kids. Then, enter MTV. Around 2000 she went back home, and suddenly the kids were all dressing, talking and acting like they were all hip hop "artists", became increasingly disrespectful towards adults, and were becoming involved with crime in order to finance the purchase of various trappings of the youth culture such as ipods and other "bling".

Tell us again that TV doesn't influence the culture. I need a good laugh.

my 2 cents
As much as Mr. Bozell rants and raves about the trash on TV (thanks Mr. B) it's not going to stop as long as dumb people sit there and watch it. As long as dumb people watch it in droves and as long as the producers know that does anyone really believe that anything is going to change? And as long as the frightening thought of "CENSORSHIP" is raised every now and then, nothing is going to change, except that it's going to get worse, because the folks in la la land are always looking to get 'edgier', which is the current "it" word.

Solution - CENSORSHIP.

CENSORSHIP in its purest form is economic CENSORSHIP and it goes like this -

1)turn off the TV and
2)let the sponsors of the most sickening shows know in no uncertain terms why you are doing so.

IOW - follow the money

But of course no one will do any of this which is why Mr. Bozell's closing remarks are so true:

Where we are headed is indeed a frightening thought.


Blimey!!!!
Some of you Yanks really are bonkers!!! I see more worrying undercurrent of inherent violence in the above comment than on the generally rather sanitised US television I saw when I lived there.
Although the vast majority of US television is, as indeed is Britain's, puerile nonsense you have produced some of the worlds greatest programming too. One of your more successfull exports. Far more than Neo-Con driven foreign policy anyway (but that's another debate)!!!

1 more thing
My 'solution' is indeed over-simplified, but it is a start. And don't we need to start somewhere?

vespanat
Would you please explain how turning off the TV and telling the sponsors of the most violent shows why you are doing so qualifies as "worrying current of inherent violence".

The vast majority of our shows are "puerile nonsense" - no argument there. But young kids who sit and watch them hour after hour don't know that.

"You have produced some of the world's greatest programming too. One of your most successful exports." What show are you referring to?

I have the first three seasons of 'Foyle's Law'. Are there going to be any others available?

Uncle Max
Your solution is not over-simplified. It’s right on the mark. If such a thing as a ‘slippery slope’ actually exists, it’s the TV itself, not individual programs. If our culture is decaying (which I doubt) due to the poison of TV programs, then it’s a poison we the people have willingly and gladly gulped. Bozell is right that the problem started so long ago, but he becomes laughable when he lists in his credits “television commentator”.

No place for "Ryan" or "Schindler"?
I'll be willing to concede that quite a bit of television is more violent than it needs to be. However, my problem with organizations like the FCC is that they don't pay much heed to the CONTEXT of such violent acts. They see the violence, the profanity, the nudity, but they fail to look past the surface features to get to the heart of the program, which may not be as dark as it seems when those surface features are taken out of context.

The brain-splattering scene that Bozell describes in "The Sopranos" occurs several times over in the first thirty minutes of "Saving Private Ryan." Why? Because that first thirty minutes depicts the Allied Invasion of Normandy. The purpose of this scene is to give the viewer a "you-are-there" feeling. It's disturbing; it's supposed to be. It's also very realistic, showing the random violence of the war up close. Without this thirty-minute scene, the strength of the individual characters we get to know afterwards has little or no meaning. "Saving Private Ryan" is a splendid film, highlighting courage and duty and loyalty among brothers in arms. Yet because of its opening and closing battle scenes, apparently it has no place on network TV.

The same goes for Spielberg's other masterpiece of the 1990s, "Schindler's List." I can still recall when an Oklahoma senator reacted angrily to the nudity in this film and to NBC's decision to air it uncut and unedited. Well, let's see -- it's set during the Holocaust; Jews are going to the gas chamber, but they're told they're going to take showers; when was the last time ANYONE wore clothes in the shower??? "Schindler," perhaps even more than "Ryan," is about courage and the need for commitment to something larger than oneself. Yet it too apparently has no place on network TV -- at least, not without the cuts and edits that would reduce the three-hour film, with its realistic depiction of the horrors of the Holocaust, to a sanitized but inaccurate hour and thirty minutes.

If we're going to start policing TV violence, all right -- let's police it wisely. Let's look at the core of the "objectionable" material. Is the violence glorified? Is it there for tittilation and excitement? If "yes," then there may be a problem. But if we don't ask these questions and go on surface features alone, we're likely to make ourselves look a little silly (e.g. those "Marching Mommies," to use AudiR10's phrase, demanding the "suicide gags" be cut from "The Scarlet Pumpernickel" and "Ballot Box Bunny" when they air on Cartoon Network).

Perhaps the best way to solve this problem is for INDIVIDUAL PARENTS to step up and assume responsibility for educating themselves as much as possible about television programs, thereby learning what's most appropriate for their young ones to see. Only someone living under a rock for the past fourteen years would not know that "Schindler's List" is set largely in a concentration camp, and if they know something about history, they would KNOW such a film is likely to be violent, and would thereby be called to make a judgment as to whether their children are "ready" to see that film. Same thing with "Saving Private Ryan," and even "The Sopranos" for that matter. Education is the answer. People who bother to read about and research these programs can make excellent self-censors.

But wouldn't we rather make those decisions ourselves instead of looking to government to make them for us?

Uncle Max
I wasn't referring to the column, it was the biblical allusions in the first comment to it that I found a little disturbing. Nothing wrong in boycotting television shows. I wish I had taken the time to express my disgust at the vacuity of current affairs programming in the US when I was there, quite terrifying. Sadly we are following the same trend here, not good.
US programmes I was/am particularly fond of were predominantly comedies like the Simpsons, Seinfeld etc. Never got into US drama too much, either to preachy like Seventh Heaven or too stylised like many cop shows. Much to my chagrin I did find Jerry Springer and Cops compulsive viewing too!! Your underclass is much more entertaining than ours!!!
I must confess to never having watched Foyle's War so I can't answer your question. A UK series to definitely watch out for is Life On Mars

oh right
i forgot, liberals are the only mommies out there trying to protect us from bad things that might hurt us like transfats...

the real slippery slope is letting government decide which ideas are allowed to be broadcast in society... once you let it happen, you could find yourself subject to the thought police... but, hey, that's what christians want, right?

Life on Mars
OK,vespanat, something we can agree on. So, when is Life on Mars coming back? I watch mostly BBC programming on my satellite since most American TV is cr*p. As a former prosecutor, I don't watch our cop shows because I know they are portraying it all wrong. I watch your cop shows because I can't tell when your cops are doing it wrong, although the head of our department who was British assured me that on British TV your cops are doing it wrong too. I love Wire in the Blood, Second Sight, Rebus, Hamish MacBeth, Touching Evil, Waking the Dead, Vincent,MI-5, Ultraviolet, The Night Detective, and the one starring the Irish guy with bad teeth, can't remember the name of the program. I wished I could love the Lynley shows, but I just tolerate them. Elizabeth George is an American but writes faux British detective novels which BBC then makes into faux Brit series. Ycch. But I love the gal they cast as Barbara. And my day would not be complete without an episode of Are You Being Served, so I bought the whole series and keep it in the player.
As for Bozell's comment about Bones, I love that show. It is one of the few American shows I watch: Bones, House, and The Unit. Bones is at least based on the real life exploits of a real forensic anthropologist, Kathy Reichs, and I would follow David Boreanz anywhere. That guy is sex personfied. When I was teaching criminal justice classes, my students were surprised to hear that I never watched CSI. As a former prosecutor, I know that forensics people do not go out and investigate crimes, most of the science they show is beyond the budget of state prosecutors and labs, so it is all hooey. But Americans love science! If only we could prove all of our criminal cases with science. Oh, wait a minute, in the Westerfield case they had competing experts on insects: which kind eat dead bodies and how long they could have been on the dead child. There is no certainty.
I was horrified to hear that The Sopranos, a show I have never had any desire to watch, is going to be on A&E. I wondered how they could sanitize the F word enough to get it on regular TV. I never watched Sex in the City, or Six Feet Under, or The L Word, or Big Love. Crap, all of them.
Give me a good mayhem movie starring Jason Statham, especially when he takes his shirt off. Now we're talking. Stylized violence is ok, but the more real they make it look, the more disturbing and the less entertaining I found it to be.

Plea to A&E:
Bring back Horatio Hornblower!!!!!

drewrush: thanks for seeing my point. A little consistency would be welcome, in that the same people who complain about censoring the word "God" from VeggieTales, and would scream bloody murder (and rightly so) if Linus's Biblical monologue were cut from "A Charlie Brown Christmas, are perfectly fine with the excision of the "suicide gag" from the end of "The Scarlet Pumpernickel." For my part, I'm outraged by BOTH -- because BOTH make the fatal mistake of ripping the decision out of our individual hands and placing it in the hands of Somebody Else who "knows what's good for you." If you're an atheist, thinks Somebody Else, then you're being oppressed if you even hear the word "God." And if you see Daffy Duck "commit suicide" and sit up to speak the final line, you'll think that you can shoot yourself too and get up afterwards, perfectly fine -- because of course, your own parents can't be trusted to supervise or teach you any better.

Mind your own business, Somebody Else. I can read, and I can make informed decisions about what I watch. So can the rest of us.

For Crossbearer
I saw the decline of TV from 1970's (when I first immigrated to Canada) till 1986 when I could not understand at all "Married With Children", supposed to be a "sitcom"--and obviously things have headed further downslope since then.

When I did post-grad studies (in a US), I was one of the few Indians not to purchase a TV; even after I started working, I didn't purchase a TV for a few years (though I bought one in 1997, along with a VCR to see movies--a VCP and the picture tube alone would have sufficed; I sold them off in 2001, and have not replaced them since). As far as getting the news, the internet (I actually browse to BBC, WorldNetDaily and TownHall) suffices.

For Crossbearer-cont'd
After I came to Christ, I heard my spiritual father (whom I met actually a few YEARS after making the decision--it would take easily 10 long posts to be complete on this) describe TV as "moron box" (after I'd already gotten away from it due to being jaded).

It is ironic that BOOKS are now (due to TV) falling into neglect as entertainment (admittedly, discretion is also needed in choosing these, and entertainment should not be an idol).

Pamela
No one is saying that network TV shouldn't show movies like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Schindler's List" as we all know that there is a context for the brutality and nudity there. As a matter of fact, the FCC never threatened anyone with fines or sanctions for showing these movies on the networks, there were just a few grandstanding affiliates that pretended to be afraid to air them in the wake of the Janet Jackson fiasco.

For a show like "The Sopranos" though, the violence does not need to be as vivid to tell the story; it is there for shock value primarily, and for A&E to air it in primetime shows a lack of reasoning from a once proud network. I watch "Law&Order" all the time, and they manage to have plenty of murders, rapes, and assaults on the show every week without showing it in graphic detail and it does not diminish the show one bit. A good writer can draw the picture for you by using dialogue or the reactions of the characters to the scene to convey the gruesome nature of the crime...a poor writer has to have vivid pictures because he lacks the skill to use words to draw the picture.

Finally, neither Brent nor the other posters here wants the G to make viewing decisions for us. But the FCC does have the power to regulate what goes out over the braodcast networks and should use it. Cable is a different matter as you have to pay for the service; but until we can get true ala carte progamming choice, some are going to be stuck recieving networks and shows they don't want. You are right in that we should be self censoring in what we watch, but there are times that we as parents can't watch our kids or monitor everything they see; that is why we need some standards for what makes it to free TV and basic cable/satellite service networks.

Point taken, Flagwaver
A&E has certainly gone downhill. (Two words, A&E: Horatio Hornblower.) It would be a lot freer to air "The Sopranos" as it pleases if it aired it later in the evening.

However, what is the networks' ideal of "family programming" these days? Reality TV. We don't have the high-quality "Wonderworks" series anymore, showing strong, interesting dramas that would appeal to kids and adults alike; instead, families sit down together to watch "Fear Factor." THIS, to my mind, is much more of a problem than the things Bozell cites in his article. (Doesn't "Bones" air at 10 p.m.? If it airs at 9 p.m. I might understand the brouhaha, but 10 p.m. programming should be scrutinized less. And again, the problems would be solved if parents bothered to educate themselves about this material and then make their own decisions!)

At their core, shows like "Survivor" and "Big Brother" are much darker and more corrupt than "Bones" or "C.S.I." The latter two may have more objectionable surface features, but the problem with the former two lies in their souls. We need to look past the surface to see what the shows are really selling us. I'm not saying that the FCC should not object to ANYTHING, or that network TV should have absolutely unrestricted license. I'm just suggesting we should look a little deeper.


Technicalities
On the subject of censorship, but onto sex, one thing I've noticed is the incredible lack of context regarding sexuality and nudity. For instance, the Janet Jackson thing. Granted, it was tasteless, but it was a half-second flash. Meanwhile, networks feel free to show "bedroom" scenes on shows like Friends. One time I even watched Rescue Me, and it showed two people having sex with clothes on. Nip/Tuck has done the same thing.

Something is wrong when we're so concerned with people seeing a nipple, but not concerned with two people on-screen goin' at it.

Context has a lot to do with the problem. Certainly, shows like Saving Private Ryan should carry parental discretion warnings, but the context is reasonable enough to not be gratuitous.

Pamela
You mentioned that the FCC does not consider the context of the violence when they exercise or attempt to exercise censorship in programming. I'm not sure the FCC exercises any real power, but I'll concede that point. My point is that viewers frequently do not consider the context of violence in programs they watch on TV. Whats more, most film and tv producers don't even try to put the violence in context. Sure I agree Saving Private Ryan had "context," but that doesn't mean all facets of a bloody and gruesome day on the beaches of Normandy needs to be broadcast on primetime, when less discriminating parents let their children watch. Sure, the casual use of the word "f*ck" by soldiers or someone's brains being splattered all over their comrades might be factual and realistic, but what purpose does it serve, except to either seriously disturb the audience or cater to their viler expectations and desires? Couldn't the same basic messages of movies like SPR be communicated with less horrendous and graphic violence? What is even the message of SPR? After all, the WWII generation which actually witnessed and lived through the events was responsible for making war movies like The Longest Day, which is by far a more tame reenactment of the same events.

You're A Parent, Not A Pal
As always, the truly terrifying alternative to all this wibbling is to look oneself in the mirror and say "I AM HIS MOTHER -- I AM NOT HIS GAL PAL." And then go and govern yourself accordingly. My kids used to drive the babysitters crazy by chorusing "We're not allowed to watch that!" until she changed the channel or removed the videotape. They also drove my sisters crazy by making MST3K type editorial comments that finally made on sister shout "Do Y'all have to discuss EVERYTHING?" But we began when they were small with the game of "what would REALLY happen if..." For example,
"What would really happen if you said that to your mother?" "What would really happen if someone drove his car through the streets like that?" "What would really happen if you jumped off a building onto a moving bus?" "What would really happen to a girl who left a bar and went home with somebody she didn't know?"

They also didn't need disclaimers that "Superman can't really fly" or "This toy doesn't shoot actual bullets" -- they knew Superman couldn't fly because they'd been to a museum and had somebody explain why birds can fly and people can't. (They also understand why a cement boat can float, which I don't and probably never will.) And all of us have learned useful things from programs such as "Emergency" -- such as from the woman who mixed clorox and ammonia and blew up her toilet.

The answer to the problem isn't just mindlessly banning everything that an unsupervised brat might accidentally see. The answer to the problem is SUPERVISE THE BRAT. And since he's YOUR BRAT, you are the one who has to do the supervising.

Solving the Problem
As Neil Postman once put it: "The problem is not WHAT we watch---the problem is THAT we watch."

In my opinion, there is NO "good television". None. Anyone who can discourse in depth on any television program needs to, in the current vernacular, "get a life".

And, no, I don't watch the foolish little box. I've got too much to do.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Karth
I would respond, but I have too much to do. Please...give me a break. There really is good television - there are thought-provoking documentaries as well as excellent news and current events show, should you know where to look. Tasteful dramas and adventure series are definitely lacking, but I never watch those. Sporting events prove to be pleasant diversions for the most part (although Monday Night Football is pretty lousy nowadays). Don't be so elitist. If you were really that busy, you wouldn't bother to read an article about violence on TV, since it wouldn't pertain to you.

People On Screen Goin' At It
Wish I had been able to find all this gratuitous sex on the telly when I lived in the US, would have saved me fortune in porn!! I've never really understood the uS puritanical streak hen it comes to sex. I thought we were meant to be sexually uptight and repressed!!!
A little alarmed to hear our "spiritual father" is getting in on the argument, surely he has more imprtant things to worry about than the television!!!

vespanat
Ah yes, the enlightened European, he has so much pornography and so much sex yet isn't reproducing and will soon disappear.Such a brilliant life strategy. yet it seems like natural selection is on the side of the "puritanical". Being so enlightened I'm sure you are a darwinist so you must therefore see "puritanism" as a positive. Which would mean that your life is based on a negative as it will lead to your societys extinction. But then, the US streak is not based on darwinism, it is based on the idea that human beings are not objects meant to enjoyed, they are complicated and beutiful life forms created in the immage of god and meant to be adored. In the enjoyment mindset it is not necessary to even know the persons name let alone create burdens of resposibility in the form of offspring. If one's mindset is that pleasure is paramount then one seeks to get the most pleasure and therefore as many different partners as possible. This of course would mean that actually getting to know someone would be counterproductive, it would slow you down. Sexual liscentiousness is akin to gluttony, the object is volume. You probably think fat people are disgusting yet you don't make the same connection with sexual gluttony .Of course you will protest that no one has the right to interfere with your enjoyment. So go enjoy yourself and spare us your blather. You are a society that is in it's death throws and you mock those that wont follow you and yours to the grave.

jcthomasva: Active v. passive activities
Television and its effects affect all of us, even those of us who have better things to do than watch the foolish little box. We are, after all, part of a society, and that society includes watchers and non-watchers alike. One has to be aware (indeed, given the pervasive nature of the medium, one almost cannot avoid being aware) of what goes on with and about the F.L.B. The concept involved is known as "self-defense".

As to your specifics: Facts and perspectives on news and current events are far more accessible and comprehensible when one reads newspapers, magazines and/or websites. At least these have the advantage of providing enough content and coherence to allow the reader to assemble them into a coherent picture of the world.

Dramas and adventure series---the same thing applies. As to "sporting events", the sort of events in that category that are available on network or cable television are simply collections of mercenaries that do what they do because they are paid for it. They have little or no loyalty (or even any sort of tie) to the communities they claim to "represent". (I will concede that some of the lower levels of college and semi-pro teams do have such ties, or at least a percentage of the players do.) Far better to actively participate on a team or in an athletic group (karate dojo, YMCA team, etc.) of one's own.

The main difference, sir, between the sort of pastimes you champion and those I am involved in is that the watching pastimes are passive, and involve little or no rational thought, and participatory ones are active, and may involve considerable thought/attention indeed. (Full disclosure: oversimplification have been made for brevity's sake.) I choose the latter, and I encourage those around me to do the same. If nothing else, it makes them more interesting.

If that makes me an elitist, well, thank you. I do try.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Enlightened European???
Hardly!!! Wish I was getting as much sex as you seem to think I am!! Seriously though, from my albeit limited experience of the sexual mores of the US I have found your populace more promiscuous than ours (and that's saying something!!!)
Also I really don't see European society (of which we are not necesserily an integral part anyway) in it's death throes. Conversley I do see the US in state of unstoppable descendency, ironically helped greatly by GWB's policy's leading to both moral bankruptcy abroad and financial bankruptcy at home.
A shame really as so much good could have been done during your 'time at the top'.

VESPANAT
Thanks for the response. I kinda thought that's what you meant. Never heard of 'Life on Mars'. I'll see if I can find it.

Good stuff - there is some. I recently rented a video of a Hallmark Show entitled 'Brush With Fate' that was exquisite. Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, - there are some good shows. But I would say that the large majority of it is trash and I think BBIII is good to keep tabs on it. He is telling us what is on the tube. My current favorites are 'Numbers' 'NCIS' 'The Unit' and 'Jericho' when it comes back.

In a magnanimous gesture I'll forgive your being a fan of The Simpsons and Jerry Springer in the interest of better relations between our two countries.

p.s. - are you really one of those 'enlightened Europeans?' I've heard of you folks but never had the pleasure of meeting one.

You'll have to forgive some of us conservatives - some of us are sense-of-humor-challenged. As for me I make sure I read P. G. Wodehouse frequently and when I take my dog for a walk in the woods to watch him rolling in the dirt with that look of idiotic satisfaction on his face makes me laugh out loud.

Lucky me.

1 more thing
Just had a flash: BBIII kinda reminds me of that song way back when by Sting - 'I'll Be Watching You'

That's cool

attitude
What bothers me about dramatic violence is the attitude with which it is presented. For example, Shakespearean and classic Greek tragedies usually end with everyone dead on the floor--and the audience in tears. The question to ask is whether those who witness or perpetrate the violence are laughing or crying.

No more Glad bags

I for one am refusing to purchase any more Glad products since they have decided that bank robbery and assault are fit themes for use in the TV marketing of their trash bags.

A pox on their company and the TV executives who take their money. They will hereafter get not one more cent of mine.


TV Program Selection Device
Why not build a TV set where the possessor of a "selection" code could key-select the various TV shows(s) that can subsequently be watched on the basis of an "electronic" pre-selection" of these programs, that is, can subsequently be watched until the list is updated? The viewing of ALL other TV shows would be blocked unless the possessor of the code "permitted" them to be shown (i.e. put them on a "permitted" list of shows that could be shown.

This process forces the possessor of the viewing code, presumably an adult, into the viewing selection process. Today, there is no "reviewer" today with this type of TV program selection tool.

For instance, the parent could select the station and time that his/her child could watch the set (and the show of his/her choosing) based on newspaper reviews, word-of-mouth, neighbor's opinion, church opinion, various critics, publications, pulpit recommendations, etc.

In contrast to today's TV program selection process where ANY viewer who can turn on the TV set can select any program he/she can dial-to using the channel/station knob on the TV set; the prospective viewer would need the code to put the program on the list of permitted programs, i.e. the list of "viewable" shows. ALL others would be blocked.

Of course, a child could watch whatever show he/she can view on a neighbor's TV set, especially one without this program selection device.

Presumably, the consciencious parent would check the potential playmate's parents for evidence of what programs the neighbor had on his/her list, if any.

This type of device would be appropriate for young children, not teenagers who presumably know more than adults do about electronics.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.