DEFEATING THE CULTURE OF DEATH !

Well though this sleepy, tired but still outraged citizen that is typing the essay post about defeating the culture of death is *not* a fan of senator Clinton much less that yuppie-minded/ NAFTA suppporting, globalist husband, yet , nothwistanding, Hillary should be applauded for having the good sense to act in a way unlike those qualities just described, and take a stand against the culture of death by taking a stand against the lurid, weirdly illicit violence found in the xbox games !

It's about time a very public figure addressed that issue . It's high time that the culture of death in general be addressed as being NO good whatsoever and NOT deserving of any acceptance. Hopefully Hillary could get a momentuum going ----however she would have to get rid of other postmodernist tendencies she has which undermine the good sense she shows in being against the Xboxes .

Such games that celebrate such illicit and lurid violence are part of a vaster trend these days that either (1) actively celebrates the interrelated themes of death, dysfunctionality,perversity,and tragedy OR worse still (2) has a weird ---often latent attiitude of acceptance of death,dysfunctionality, perversity, and tragedy as being supposedly "part of life". Such a tendency is best called 'CULTURAL ENTROPY' .

At the risk of stating what should have been acknowledged by much more people as being obvious quite some time ago, death is not part of life, and dysfunctionality, perversity, and tragic events happening to people should NOT ever be accepted as somehow "being part of life". Cultural entropy should NOT ever be accepted even a little bit. Cultural entropy should NOT even almost be a little bit accepted !

There is a quite weird tendency, which is all so popular these days, for people to merely try to ameliorate that which is bad ----to balance it with good instead of getting rid of it altogether.

If a quality is inherently bad, then what people ought to do is get rid of it altogether ----they should try to persuade others and be convinced themselves.. that the quality that is inherently bad should not be around at all !Inherently bad qualities ought to be driven out altogether and *replaced* with good ! We should NOT settle for a balance between bad and good !

What is long overdue is an ointment without any flies in it !

The sort of outlook that claims there ought to be any "give and take" between the good and what is inherently bad ---is a bizarre, murky and totally wrong outlook, and one which should never even be partially accepted--*not* even a little bit . Such an outlook of "give and take" when it comes to good and bad is, after all, fundamentally inconsistent .

The tendency of cultural entropy is what has been at the onset of this present essay referred to as the culture of death. The culture of death is another phrase meaning 'cultural entropy'. It has many manifestations from Xboxes,t.v. shows that revel in mind boggling vulgarities such as people eliminating("going to the bathroom") graphic sex---(such television fluff including the monstrosities of reality t.v.) , and the quite hideously/weird, sinister t.v. reporting of a child's death under bizarre circumstances in the late part of 1996 being turned into weird, sordid whodunit entertainment and media gossip .

It is high time people reject and publically and vehemently reject all expressions of cultural entropy , Consider well that terms such as "fanatic" , "ideologue", "obsessive", "nutjob" are often just the sort of terms used by ambivalent people to lambast other people who are thoroughly consistent (or who aspire to be). Such terms are often used to lambast/ to portray people who refuse to sell out as somehow bad .

If someone lambasts somebody else who is consistent towards value as being "a fanatic", an "ideologue" ----the person who is called a "fantatic" or an "ideologue" should respond them by saying, "oh by 'fanatic', or 'ideologue' you mean someone who is consistent who desires to have integrity *instead* of being ambivalent /*instead* of being conflicted ."

By "fanatic" ,"ideologue", "obsesive" ---you mean someone who does NOT sell out principles by respecting and opinion merely because someone holds some opinion .

Consider the following scenario . There are water creatures that live in a pond that has become quite dirty and thus polluted . There are some creatures that either exhort the other creatures to leave the pond or make the waters cleaner . Then there are the pond creatures that wish to adapt and exort others to adapt to the polluted situation in the pond and call the others "ideologues", "fanatics",
crackpots" ect . Much of pop psychology exhorts people to be like the creatures who lower standards and adapt to the lingering ugliness of the pond.

Much of the ideology that is popular psychology wants people not to ask the question 'what is virtuous?' any more but, instead, ask 'what helps a person to adapt in today's world ? That ideology is quite wrong. It is an amoral ideology and one that breeds mediocrity of adapting to the ugly and froward .

Another nuance of what is going wrong is the weird tendency these days for people to be only sometimes absolutists in thought and relativists at other times . This topic should best be more fully explored in another essay post here at Ishbadiddle. The weird phernomenon of people who only sometimes talk as though they were absolutists but from time to time make an occasional pro-relativist statement, or when faced with some person they meet making statements that support what is putatively bad , become subtily ambivalent, respecting the bad opinions a little bit , then these people go back to talking like absolutists and expressing *in private* disapproval of the relativist beliefs .

If one is to have integrity one ,indeed, must NOT be flexible at all about ultimate principle . It is NOT a matter of going overboard.... those who support what is inherently bad. Instead that which is inherently bad should not be at all .

One should NOT be a relativist for an hour on Wednesday and an absolutist throughout the rest of week. Instead, one should be an absolutist throughout the whole week . If one encounters a murky , crass opinion one should single-mindedly and, hence , unwaveringly, tell the person who expresses it that is quite wrong ----or at least stand at a distance and send off a written message that it is quite wrong .

The "conflicted" , "multi-faceted" (i.e. two-faced,ambiguous ) approach should be always rejected . Indeed, we should be single-minded purists who try to change the world . Consistency about value demands no less .

'Speak the truth every man to his neighbor, execute the judgement of truth and peace in your gates ' Zecheriah 8:16

DEFEATING THE CULTURE OF DEATH !

Well though this sleepy, tired but still outraged citizen that is typing the essay post about defeating the culture of death is *not* a fan of senator Clinton much less that yuppie-minded/ NAFTA suppporting, globalist husband, yet , nothwistanding, Hillary should be applauded for having the good sense to act in a way unlike those qualities just described, and take a stand against the culture of death by taking a stand against the lurid, weirdly illicit violence found in the xbox games !

It's about time a very public figure addressed that issue . It's high time that the culture of death in general be addressed as being NO good whatsoever and NOT deserving of any acceptance. Hopefully Hillary could get a momentuum going ----however she would have to get rid of other postmodernist tendencies she has which undermine the good sense she shows in being against the Xboxes .

Such games that celebrate such illicit and lurid violence are part of a vaster trend these days that either (1) actively celebrates the interrelated themes of death, dysfunctionality,perversity,and tragedy OR worse still (2) has a weird ---often latent attiitude of acceptance of death,dysfunctionality, perversity, and tragedy as being supposedly "part of life". Such a tendency is best called 'CULTURAL ENTROPY' .

At the risk of stating what should have been acknowledged by much more people as being obvious quite some time ago, death is not part of life, and dysfunctionality, perversity, and tragic events happening to people should NOT ever be accepted as somehow "being part of life". Cultural entropy should NOT ever be accepted even a little bit. Cultural entropy should NOT even almost be a little bit accepted !

There is a quite weird tendency, which is all so popular these days, for people to merely try to ameliorate that which is bad ----to balance it with good instead of getting rid of it altogether.

If a quality is inherently bad, then what people ought to do is get rid of it altogether ----they should try to persuade others and be convinced themselves.. that the quality that is inherently bad should not be around at all !Inherently bad qualities ought to be driven out altogether and *replaced* with good ! We should NOT settle for a balance between bad and good !

What is long overdue is an ointment without any flies in it !

The sort of outlook that claims there ought to be any "give and take" between the good and what is inherently bad ---is a bizarre, murky and totally wrong outlook, and one which should never even be partially accepted--*not* even a little bit . Such an outlook of "give and take" when it comes to good and bad is, after all, fundamentally inconsistent .

The tendency of cultural entropy is what has been at the onset of this present essay referred to as the culture of death. The culture of death is another phrase meaning 'cultural entropy'. It has many manifestations from Xboxes,t.v. shows that revel in mind boggling vulgarities such as people eliminating("going to the bathroom") graphic sex---(such television fluff including the monstrosities of reality t.v.) , and the quite hideously/weird, sinister t.v. reporting of a child's death under bizarre circumstances in the late part of 1996 being turned into weird, sordid whodunit entertainment and media gossip .

It is high time people reject and publically and vehemently reject all expressions of cultural entropy , Consider well that terms such as "fanatic" , "ideologue", "obsessive", "nutjob" are often just the sort of terms used by ambivalent people to lambast other people who are thoroughly consistent (or who aspire to be). Such terms are often used to lambast/ to portray people who refuse to sell out as somehow bad .

If someone lambasts somebody else who is consistent towards value as being "a fanatic", an "ideologue" ----the person who is called a "fantatic" or an "ideologue" should respond them by saying, "oh by 'fanatic', or 'ideologue' you mean someone who is consistent who desires to have integrity *instead* of being ambivalent /*instead* of being conflicted ."

By "fanatic" ,"ideologue", "obsesive" ---you mean someone who does NOT sell out principles by respecting and opinion merely because someone holds some opinion .

Consider the following scenario . There are water creatures that live in a pond that has become quite dirty and thus polluted . There are some creatures that either exhort the other creatures to leave the pond or make the waters cleaner . Then there are the pond creatures that wish to adapt and exort others to adapt to the polluted situation in the pond and call the others "ideologues", "fanatics",
crackpots" ect . Much of pop psychology exhorts people to be like the creatures who lower standards and adapt to the lingering ugliness of the pond.

Much of the ideology that is popular psychology wants people not to ask the question 'what is virtuous?' any more but, instead, ask 'what helps a person to adapt in today's world ? That ideology is quite wrong. It is an amoral ideology and one that breeds mediocrity of adapting to the ugly and froward .

Another nuance of what is going wrong is the weird tendency these days for people to be only sometimes absolutists in thought and relativists at other times . This topic should best be more fully explored in another essay post here at Ishbadiddle. The weird phernomenon of people who only sometimes talk as though they were absolutists but from time to time make an occasional pro-relativist statement, or when faced with some person they meet making statements that support what is putatively bad , become subtily ambivalent, respecting the bad opinions a little bit , then these people go back to talking like absolutists and expressing *in private* disapproval of the relativist beliefs .

If one is to have integrity one ,indeed, must NOT be flexible at all about ultimate principle . It is NOT a matter of going overboard.... those who support what is inherently bad. Instead that which is inherently bad should not be at all .

One should NOT be a relativist for an hour on Wednesday and an absolutist throughout the rest of week. Instead, one should be an absolutist throughout the whole week . If one encounters a murky , crass opinion one should single-mindedly and, hence , unwaveringly, tell the person who expresses it that is quite wrong ----or at least stand at a distance and send off a written message that it is quite wrong .

The "conflicted" , "multi-faceted" (i.e. two-faced,ambiguous ) approach should be always rejected . Indeed, we should be single-minded purists who try to change the world . Consistency about value demands no less .

'Speak the truth every man to his neighbor, execute the judgement of truth and peace in your gates ' Zecheriah 8:16

Jason,
I agree with your evaluation of culture, although I think it might be overstated (But I admit I live somewhat in a culture bubble. I couldn't name a simgle hit song of the past 5 years and have never watched an episode of Desperate Housewives). However, I think "cultural entropy" is off the mark. Entropy implies a natural unraveling of something previously created (ie an ice cube melting, a mountain eroding). But society and culture naturaly gets more complex. We went from everybody being a hunter or a gatherer to job specifications ranging from Tractor Mechanic to Undersecretary for Far East Foreign Affairs to "adult film idustry costume designer". So why the rise of this celebrations of dysfunction? The cause is not natural. There is a proactive attempt by the monied interest in our society to sell more advertisements, more videos/DVDs, more game boxes, and more newspapers and magazines. This is not new, but it is more competitive and the technology is harder and harder to get away from. In general there is more of everthing now than there was a generation ago. That includes entertainment; and don't be niave to think that the entertainment industry (our nations' 2nd largest) is run by artist. It is run by greedy corporations, who will always put the $ over all else.

Where do I apply to become an "adult film industry costume designer" ?

First and foremost, I'm very glad to see Ish increasingly focused on Video Games. Bravo!

As to agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Igantiaus O'Reilly, I can only say: TLDR.

Thus, I must turn to Patrick.

I take issue with the tired trope of the "greedy corporation." No such animal. Corporations are just legal constructs - they have no emotions like "greed." People are greedy. People who run corporations are greedy. People who work for corporations are greedy. Artists are greedy. Well-intentioned activists are greedy. You're greedy. I'm *particularly* greedy. Everyone is greedy. Even the Pope was greedy though, to be fair, his greed seemed to be limited to making lots more Saints for his collection.

Pushing off the ills of society on the notion that there are maliciously motivated "corporations" that are somehow distinct from the people that populate them is an easy distraction from the real problem: People suck. And there are a lot of people these days, so their suckiness is manifest in both a larger volume and diversity.

I mean if when you say, "monied interest," you mean "anyone who wants more money," I guess I agree with you. But that's a pretty wide net. And it isn't just "corporations" who put money above all else. It is pretty much everybody. Your barber charges as much as he can. He wants money. Money for nice things. If he could charge more, he would. He's greedy. That lady playing the lottery? Greedy. Bought some Krispy Kreme stock? Greedy and not too bright. Or are you telling me you bought it because it was noble. That you didn't care about the money. Because then you are just not too bright.

The Hunters and Gatherers were greedy too, by the way. The Hunters took the best parts of the kills. And the hot chicks. And the nice tents - you know, the ones with the rock facing in the back? I frickin' hated the Hunters. Greedy bastards. Cocky too. Like spearing is everything. Whatever.

Blaming Starbucks for the ills of the world is fun and easy. Especially if you do it over a nice half-caff mochachino. But it is people. Just crappy, selfish, stupid, brutish people. All trying to make a buck any way they can. And get enough of them on a planet, and you get a lot of stupid cultural noise. Sometimes in corporate form. Sometimes not.

So, in summary - I disagree with your key point: That the "rise of celebrations of dysfunction" has an unnatural cause. I think the cause is quite natural: more people. It doesn't take ads or slick corporate jingles to make people suck. Humans are naturals.

Forgive my darkness this morning. Part of it is that I'm rather unhappy that the sexy content is so damn hard to unlock. Anyone got a good cheat guide for Grand Theft Auto?

Jimpy, let me explain myself. By "moneyed interest" I mean interested parties who HAVE monies, enough money to buy lobbyist, air time, maybe a whole media empire, thugs, lawyers, and PR firms. With their money they can change our laws, dominate the media, and generally guide public discourse. They can do this in a way that a small business owner, like a barber, or an individual investor can not. What do they do with the power that money gives them? They make more money, increase their market share, and maintain whatever dominance they have. Society may or may not be harmed in the process. That is not their job or their concern.
Who are “they”? Yes, at some level they are people. However these people have fiduciary responsibilities not civic ones. They will not be fulfilling their contractual obligations to their shareholders if they do anything less than everything possible to increase profits and shareholder value. Market to impressionable children? Sure. Hire only attractive bartenders? Done. Fund research that shows that your product is safe? Don’t get me started. The heads of large corporations will always do every thing short of breaking the law, and often things past breaking the law that they feel they can get away with, to boost market share and stock price. The people at the heads of the corporation do this to save their jobs and to boost their own personal wealth (CEO comp is commonly tied to stock price).
So, all the rest of us are left with only the government to ensure that the CEOs don’t hurt society too much. This is where anti-trust laws, OSHA and product safety laws, anti-discrimination laws, come in. So Hillary, I hope you are gunning after the makers of the video games, and not just grandstanding against the “culture” . After all, who created that culture?

I am not here to defend CEOs. I am here to demonize everyone else.

You say "the heads of large corporations will always do every thing short of breaking the law, and often things past breaking the law that they feel they can get away with, to boost market share and stock price."

Agreed. But what about this sentence? "Individuals will always do every thing short of breaking the law, and often things past breaking the law that they feel they can get away with, to boost their personal wealth."

And while CEO's may have more power as individuals, they are vastly outnumbered by the great masses of individual wrongdoers.

Your local corner bodega sells liquor and cigarettes to children in a way that Stop & Shop wouldn't dare. Why? Because they can. They want the sale. And if they are caught, no one cares. Maybe a ticket. Probably not. But if Stop & Shop did it? Scandal.

Your local bar only hires "hot" waitresses too. The difference is they will never face a lawsuit over it, or any reprecussions at all. The owner gets to sleep with the waitress too. She needs the job.

You know that friendly lady down the street who watches your kids? She uses Benydryl to keep their naps long.

You know why the corner grocery can stay open around the clock? Their screwing their immigrant employees. Hey, gotta make a buck! Besides, where are they gonna go?

Did you know you can steal cable with a splicer? Don't worry about it - you're just sticking it to "the man." Those fees they charge for cable are too high . . . and totally unrelated to theft, right?

The list goes on. It isn't corporate america doing this - it is the noble small business owner, the struggling artist, etc., etc., etc. Greedy people.

Can any corporation do more damage than any one of them? Sure. Meet Enron. But in the aggregate, people are just as crappy and mean on a small scale as they are on a large scale. And there are a LOT of people on the small scale.

If anything, you are *better off* with the big boys. At least they take a passing glance at those laws you cite. You think the neighborhood odd-job guy gives a damn about OSHA? Or whether he's using substandard building materials when he puts up your new windows? Or listening to your complaints when the thing gives in next winter?

At least the CEO has a fidicuiary duty to shareholders. What does the individual have? Nothing. Duty to themselves. Thanks for the cash. Not a shred of nobility is gained by virtue of self-employment or creative spark.

I hate the notion that we are a nation of noble people brought low by the coercive powers of lobbyists, thugs and PR Firms. As if, left to a state of nature - free from the coercion of the Fox Channel - we would live in Utopia. We are, in reality, a nation of short-sighted dupes, frequently hoisted on our collective petards.

You ask who created this culture? We created this culture. And I don't mean "them" with their fancy pants lawyers and their high-hat PR firms. I mean "us," with our love for the "here" and the "now" and "today" and "I want it." Grand Theft Auto is just what we want - and not because THEY told us to like it.

Now then, if you don't want another heaping helping of darkness and despair - TELL ME HOW TO GET TO THE DIRTY STUFF. This stupid "Grand Theft Auto" game is boring me. Everyone is still dressed.

I must disagree with you Jimpy. These large corporations do SOOOO much more damage than a dishonest bodega owner or shoddy local contractor. I am not saying the CEOs are worse people; but on a societal level a CEO (and all in management involved) who runs a company that dumps chemicals into a water supply that poisons and kills thousands is doing more damage than a person who sticks a knife in one person’s gut. To get back more to the original issue, a network that promotes, dispenses and profits from sexist exploitation in programming is doing more harm than the guy who whistles at miniskirt clad women on the street.

You say:
“ We created this culture. And I don't mean "them" with their fancy pants lawyers and their high-hat PR firms. I mean "us," with our love for the "here" and the "now" and "today" and "I want it." Grand Theft Auto is just what we want - and not because THEY told us to like it.”

This is just not true. American culture today comes from the top down. Were we asking for reality television? More violence in our video games? No. It was offered to us, and sold with increasingly aggressive tactics. We may take it for lack of an alternative and because it appeals to our lowest instincts. This is especially evident when looking at things that are marketed to kids. Which is why politicians often latch on to this kind of thing.

You are avoiding the essential issue, Patrick:

HOW DO I GET THEM NEKKID?!?

That's it. I'm off to go rent some porn or something. This is just too hard! Stupid Grand Theft Auto.

Anyway, back to the "point." You're right - we disagree. I DO think we ask for reality television and more violence in our video games. And thus we get it. I feel like blaming marketing and 'lack of alternative' and such is a cop-out.

I cynically believe that the reason politicians latch on to this kind of thing has nothing to do with protecting children from corporate marketing (don't see much action against McDonalds these days, do ya'). It has to do with the fact that Rockstar Games made themselves an easy mark.

The actual sin they committed is laughable. Have you ever played the game? Do you know how hard it is to activate the Hot Coffee data? How much time you have to devote to get to it? It is such a nothing it isn't even funny (which is why it took the industry a long time to figure out they were really getting in trouble here). Attacking them is just easy points, so they get attacked.

The original author is quite right - the hypocrisy of attacking an obscure and hidden part of a video game (unaccessible without great effort) while honoring the cherished traditions of football (along with the spectacular injury/violence/crime/sexism associated with it) is tragic.

It is a fine show, but we bring this on ourselves. To the extent it is inflicted on us, we are most eager participants.

Nice chatting - but I gotta go. I leave the last word to you, no doubt to be followed by a thrice-posted barely formatted rant.

Have an awesome weekend! :-)

Dear Patrick,

Good to correspond with you. Just curious as to how you think that the evaluation of culture I have presented may be overstated ? Interesting what you have said regarding society moving from the simple to the complex---thus you believe that it is somehow dubious for anyone to claim that there is any 'cultural entropy' in the present day and age.

As a counterpoint you should consider that the complexity that has developed over the centuries and millenia is largely either (a) a complexity in material technology or (b) a complexity in patterns of thought, behavior , and communication . To maintain that there has *not* been an entropy ---which is to say, a transition of a system or state of affairs from greater order to greater disorder (in regard to culture) is misleading, inasmuch, as as the sort of disorder which I posited as being on the increase... is more of a disorder of the aspects of culture that are not identical with material technology (though it may indirectly affect that) . It is a type of increasing disorder which is compatible with the complexity of thought, behavior, and communication which was mentioned in the sentences above . At first glance that might sound counterintuitive ----you might be asking how can there be both an increasing complexity in systems of human experience and at the same time increasing disorder ? Well, one consideration that helps to clarify the topic is that much of the complexity of thought, behavior, and communication that goes on, especially these days, is, at best, superfluous, in regard to esthetic and ethical value, and, at worst, detrimental to those concerns. Perhaps the issue might best be conceptualized in terms of how there is a difference between (1) complexity and (2) nuance of thought.

(1)Complexity ----in the most wholesale sense of the word and (2). nuance of thought.. are NOT one in the same (though many people these days seem to talk as if they were) .

In this day and age one might encounter all sorts of complexity . For a thought experiment, consider that a person could encounter in some mall somewhere over 100 "more" so-called flavors of artificially flavored chewing gum which might quite likely taste vaguely all alike -with the most minor of low key variations . Often in the present tacky decade one finds so many media expressions in mainstream outlets that have numerouw cosmetic variations /reshufflings and repackagings of the same tedious cultural motifs and monikers . In such outlets there is, however, often a *lack* of a *deeper novelty*: a *lack* of incisiveness and a *lack* of what the 19th century English poet Gerald Hopkins called , 'the unspent freshness deep down things' .

Often the complexification fostered by much of mass media saturated culture (including how newer technology--- which is not necessarily intrinsically bad---being affected by the people that run and design the machines being influenced by murky sensibilities---and thus making life complicated , awkward) itself can help to *subtily desensitize* people to what is bad. In doing so, it consequently undermines what is good .

The phenomenon of spyware,ad pop ups, and all the other jarring , awkward, nerveracking quirks that computers / internet connections can get into is an example of how a superfluous complexity can distract people. With the advent of all these profuse computer quirks too many people who deal with such problems get latently often on an almost sub-conscious level come to the weird resignation towards life being complicated and awkward ----from time to time. Often the very fragmentary quality of experience that often accompanies computers (with their quirks) and the fast paced, open-ended awkwardness of cyberculture in particular leads to a *lack* of focus, a double-minded (weird) often subtily skewed pattern of thought, where people resign themselves to chaos,imperfection, and a *lack* of complete closure being part of life .

One cannot help wondering if those ugly monstrosities of bad dialogue, such as chatrooms, for example, have helped to increase a weird tendency that I have seen becoming so pervasive in recent decades especially in much of suburban America . The weird tendency which I mention is the tendency to deliberately interrupt someone . Often this takes the form of not just interrupting statements but presumptuously interrupting questions by giving a response to the person before the person has even finished asking the question! Chances are if a person responds to a question before the person has finished asking it they are answering a *different question* than the question that the person was intending to ask !

Much of the increase in this tendency towards deliberate interruption (moreover NOT interruption as a last resort but as a policy) one is hard pressed not to wonder might have been encouraged by computer chat rooms where the "dialogue" (if one should even call it that) moves so bloody fast that careful , fair response does not thrive very well . So many people these days have developed the weird pattern of interrupting someone and presumptously saying stuff like, "I already know what your going to say" and similar thought , even before the person has been given the chance to complete the question or the statement they seek to ask. I've noticed that ugly, weird tendency on the rise with clerks and other personel with goverment jobs such as that work for hospitals (even a few lazy-minded doctors) towards presumptive interruption where they take part of what someone says and run with it and thereby discourage fair , careful dialogue . It is quite frightening when one considers the ghastly unfairness and dodginess towards human relationships that will become taken for "normal" if the weird fast-talking tendency towards interruption and equivocation isn't exposed for the problem it is soon !

There is a good letter to the Editor of a 1994 issue of Adbusters magazine that identifies the problem of cultural entropy and the bigger meta-Problem behind that :the latter being the all so weird tendency of people to want to practice even virtue in moderation and thereby be lukewarm settling for 'the mediocrity of middleness' (or the 'mediocrity of the mainstream middle') .

Moderation after all is fine in regard ONLY to physical affairs like food,exercise , alchohol. It is a bizarre fallacy to apply the 'moderation in all things' approach to inherent virtue . Inherent Virtue should always be taken to extremes !

Here is the wise letter to the editor of the summer 94 issue of Adbusters magazine where Mr.Jeff Sorenson rightly exposes the weird doctrine found in a book by Marsha Kinder for the bad sign of the times it is .

Below is the letter text:

"Check out the new book , PLAYING WITH POWER IN MOVIES, TELEVISION AND VIDEO GAMES:FROM MUPPET BABIES TO TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES, by Marsha Kinder. Here's what she says about the Ninja Turtles"
'...Far from being poisoned, corrupted, or disillusioned by toxic waste, junk food, substance abuse, urban decay, dysfunctional families, parental abandonment,homelessness, gang violence, or teenage traumas, these happy mutants actually thrive in the urban sewer and are strenghtened by such postmodern threats...'

The myth implies that the way to fight current dangers is by entering a supersystem where you can become a mutant yourself---that is, by a total immersion in consumerist mass culture...'

It is high time we put the final nails in the coffin of the opinion-respecting ,"conflicted", ambiguous sophistication i.e. the mellow mediocrity that is so sophisticated as to NOT fervently believe in a committment to much of anything save perhaps tolerance itself and great sex .

In the next post, I hope to address the post of Mr. Jimpy who has been equivocating mightily in regard to the use of the word 'greed' and may be harboring a fallacy that comes from the vile sort of thinking known as lateral thinking ....

Dear Patrick,

Good to correspond with you. Just curious as to how you think that the evaluation of culture I have presented may be overstated ? Interesting what you have said regarding society moving from the simple to the complex---thus you believe that it is somehow dubious for anyone to claim that there is any 'cultural entropy' in the present day and age.

As a counterpoint you should consider that the complexity that has developed over the centuries and millenia is largely either (a) a complexity in material technology or (b) a complexity in patterns of thought, behavior , and communication .

To maintain that there has *not* been an entropy ---which is to say, a transition of a system or state of affairs from greater order to greater disorder (in regard to culture) is misleading, inasmuch, as as the sort of disorder which I posited as being on the increase... is the sort of a disorder of the aspects of culture that are not identical with material technology (though it may indirectly affect that) . It is a type of increasing disorder which is compatible with the complexity of thought, behavior, and communication which was mentioned in the sentences above . At first glance that might sound counterintuitive ----you might be asking how can there be both an increasing complexity in systems of human experience and at the same time increasing disorder ? Well, one consideration that helps to clarify the topic is that much of the complexity of thought, behavior, and communication that goes on, especially these days, is, at best, superfluous, in regard to esthetic and ethical value, and, at worst, detrimental to those concerns.

Perhaps the issue might best be conceptualized in terms of how there is a difference between (1) complexity and (2) nuance of thought.

(1) Complexity ----in the most wholesale sense of the word and (2). nuance of thought.. are NOT one in the same (though many people these days seem to talk as if they were) .

In this day and age one might encounter all sorts of complexity . For a thought experiment, consider that a person could encounter in some mall somewhere over 100 "more" so-called flavors of artificially flavored chewing gum which might quite likely taste vaguely all alike -with the most minor of low key variations . Often in the present tacky decade one finds so many media expressions in mainstream outlets that have numerouw cosmetic variations /reshufflings and repackagings of the same tedious cultural motifs and monikers . In such outlets there is, however, often a *lack* of a *deeper novelty*: a *lack* of incisiveness and a *lack* of what the 19th century English poet Gerald Hopkins called , 'the unspent freshness deep down things' .

Often the complexification fostered by much of mass media saturated culture (including how newer technology--- which is not necessarily intrinsically bad---being affected by the people that run and design the machines being influenced by murky sensibilities---and thus making life complicated , awkward) itself can help to *subtily desensitize* people to what is bad. In doing so, it consequently undermines what is good .

The phenomenon of spyware,ad pop ups, and all the other jarring , awkward, nerveracking quirks that computers / internet connections can get into is an example of how a superfluous complexity can distract people. With the advent of all these profuse computer quirks too many people who deal with such problems get latently often on an almost sub-conscious level come to the weird resignation towards life being complicated and awkward ----from time to time. Often the very fragmentary quality of experience that often accompanies computers (with their quirks) and the fast paced, open-ended awkwardness of cyberculture in particular leads to a *lack* of focus, a double-minded (weird) often subtily skewed pattern of thought, where people resign themselves to chaos,imperfection, and a *lack* of complete closure being part of life .

One cannot help wondering if those ugly monstrosities of bad dialogue, such as chatrooms, for example, have helped to increase a weird tendency that I have seen becoming so pervasive in recent decades especially in much of suburban America .

The weird tendency which I mention is the tendency to deliberately interrupt someone . Often this takes the form of not just interrupting statements but presumptuously interrupting questions by giving a response to the person before the person has even finished asking the question! Chances are if a person responds to a question before the person has finished asking it they are answering a *different question* than the question that the person was intending to ask !

Much of the increase in this tendency towards deliberate interruption (moreover NOT interruption as a last resort but as a policy) one is hard pressed not to wonder might have been encouraged by computer chat rooms where the "dialogue" (if one should even call it that) moves so bloody fast that careful , fair response does not thrive very well . So many people these days have developed the weird pattern of interrupting someone and presumptously saying stuff like, "I already know what your going to say" and similar thought , even before the person has been given the chance to complete the question or the statement they seek to ask. I've noticed that ugly, weird tendency on the rise with clerks and other personel with goverment jobs such as that work for hospitals (even a few lazy-minded doctors) towards presumptive interruption where they take part of what someone says and run with it and thereby discourage fair , careful dialogue . It is quite frightening when one considers the ghastly unfairness and dodginess towards human relationships that will become taken for "normal" if the weird fast-talking tendency towards interruption and equivocation isn't exposed for the problem it is soon !

There is a good letter to the Editor of a 1994 issue of Adbusters magazine that identifies the problem of cultural entropy and the bigger meta-Problem behind that :the latter being the all so weird tendency of people to want to practice even virtue in moderation and thereby be lukewarm settling for 'the mediocrity of middleness' (or the 'mediocrity of the mainstream middle') .

Moderation after all is fine in regard ONLY to physical affairs like food,exercise , alchohol. It is a bizarre fallacy to apply the 'moderation in all things' approach to inherent virtue . Inherent Virtue should always be taken to extremes ! That's the Truth folks ---an even more greater certainty then death & taxes .

Here is the wise letter to the editor of the summer 94 issue of Adbusters magazine where Mr.Jeff Sorenson rightly exposes the weird doctrine found in a book by Marsha Kinder for the bad sign of the times it is .

Below is the letter text:

"Check out the new book , PLAYING WITH POWER IN MOVIES, TELEVISION AND VIDEO GAMES:FROM MUPPET BABIES TO TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES, by Marsha Kinder. Here's what she says about the Ninja Turtles"
'...Far from being poisoned, corrupted, or disillusioned by toxic waste, junk food, substance abuse, urban decay, dysfunctional families, parental abandonment,homelessness, gang violence, or teenage traumas, these happy mutants actually thrive in the urban sewer and are strenghtened by such postmodern threats...'

The myth implies that the way to fight current dangers is by entering a supersystem where you can become a mutant yourself---that is, by a total immersion in consumerist mass culture...'

It is high time we put the final nails in the coffin of the opinion-respecting ,"conflicted", ambiguous sophistication i.e. the mellow mediocrity that is so sophisticated as to NOT fervently believe in a committment to much of anything.. save perhaps tolerance itself and great sex .

In the next post, I hope to address the post of Mr. Jimpy who has been equivocating mightily in regard to the use of the word 'greed' and may be harboring a fallacy that comes from the vile sort of thinking known as lateral thinking ....

Dear Patrick,

Good to correspond with you. Just curious as to how you think that the evaluation of culture I have presented may be overstated ? Interesting what you have said regarding society moving from the simple to the complex---thus you believe that it is somehow dubious for anyone to claim that there is any 'cultural entropy' in the present day and age.

As a counterpoint you should consider that the complexity that has developed over the centuries and millenia is largely either (a) a complexity in material technology or (b) a complexity in patterns of thought, behavior , and communication .

To maintain that there has *not* been an entropy ---which is to say, a transition of a system or state of affairs from greater order to greater disorder (in regard to culture) is misleading, inasmuch, as as the sort of disorder which I posited as being on the increase... is the sort of a disorder of the aspects of culture that are not identical with material technology (though it may indirectly affect that) . It is a type of increasing disorder which is compatible with the complexity of thought, behavior, and communication which was mentioned in the sentences above . At first glance that might sound counterintuitive ----you might be asking how can there be both an increasing complexity in systems of human experience and at the same time increasing disorder ? Well, one consideration that helps to clarify the topic is that much of the complexity of thought, behavior, and communication that goes on, especially these days, is, at best, superfluous, in regard to esthetic and ethical value, and, at worst, detrimental to those concerns.

Perhaps the issue might best be conceptualized in terms of how there is a difference between (1) complexity and (2) nuance of thought.

(1) Complexity ----in the most wholesale sense of the word and (2). nuance of thought.. are NOT one in the same (though many people these days seem to talk as if they were) .

In this day and age one might encounter all sorts of complexity . For a thought experiment, consider that a person could encounter in some mall somewhere over 100 "more" so-called flavors of artificially flavored chewing gum which might quite likely taste vaguely all alike -with the most minor of low key variations . Often in the present tacky decade one finds so many media expressions in mainstream outlets that have numerouw cosmetic variations /reshufflings and repackagings of the same tedious cultural motifs and monikers . In such outlets there is, however, often a *lack* of a *deeper novelty*: a *lack* of incisiveness and a *lack* of what the 19th century English poet Gerald Hopkins called , 'the unspent freshness deep down things' .

Often the complexification fostered by much of mass media saturated culture (including how newer technology--- which is not necessarily intrinsically bad---being affected by the people that run and design the machines being influenced by murky sensibilities---and thus making life complicated , awkward) itself can help to *subtily desensitize* people to what is bad. In doing so, it consequently undermines what is good .

The phenomenon of spyware,ad pop ups, and all the other jarring , awkward, nerveracking quirks that computers / internet connections can get into is an example of how a superfluous complexity can distract people. With the advent of all these profuse computer quirks too many people who deal with such problems get latently often on an almost sub-conscious level come to the weird resignation towards life being complicated and awkward ----from time to time. Often the very fragmentary quality of experience that often accompanies computers (with their quirks) and the fast paced, open-ended awkwardness of cyberculture in particular leads to a *lack* of focus, a double-minded (weird) often subtily skewed pattern of thought, where people resign themselves to chaos,imperfection, and a *lack* of complete closure being part of life .

One cannot help wondering if those ugly monstrosities of bad dialogue, such as chatrooms, for example, have helped to increase a weird tendency that I have seen becoming so pervasive in recent decades especially in much of suburban America .

The weird tendency which I mention is the tendency to deliberately interrupt someone . Often this takes the form of not just interrupting statements but presumptuously interrupting questions by giving a response to the person before the person has even finished asking the question! Chances are if a person responds to a question before the person has finished asking it they are answering a *different question* than the question that the person was intending to ask !

Much of the increase in this tendency towards deliberate interruption (moreover NOT interruption as a last resort but as a policy) one is hard pressed not to wonder might have been encouraged by computer chat rooms where the "dialogue" (if one should even call it that) moves so bloody fast that careful , fair response does not thrive very well . So many people these days have developed the weird pattern of interrupting someone and presumptously saying stuff like, "I already know what your going to say" and similar thought , even before the person has been given the chance to complete the question or the statement they seek to ask. I've noticed that ugly, weird tendency on the rise with clerks and other personel with goverment jobs such as that work for hospitals (even a few lazy-minded doctors) towards presumptive interruption where they take part of what someone says and run with it and thereby discourage fair , careful dialogue . It is quite frightening when one considers the ghastly unfairness and dodginess towards human relationships that will become taken for "normal" if the weird fast-talking tendency towards interruption and equivocation isn't exposed for the problem it is soon !

There is a good letter to the Editor of a 1994 issue of Adbusters magazine that identifies the problem of cultural entropy and the bigger meta-Problem behind that :the latter being the all so weird tendency of people to want to practice even virtue in moderation and thereby be lukewarm settling for 'the mediocrity of middleness' (or the 'mediocrity of the mainstream middle') .

Moderation after all is fine in regard ONLY to physical affairs like food,exercise , alchohol. It is a bizarre fallacy to apply the 'moderation in all things' approach to inherent virtue . Inherent Virtue should always be taken to extremes ! That's the Truth folks ---an even more greater certainty then death & taxes .

Here is the wise letter to the editor of the summer 94 issue of Adbusters magazine where Mr.Jeff Sorenson rightly exposes the weird doctrine found in a book by Marsha Kinder for the bad sign of the times it is .

Below is the letter text:

"Check out the new book , PLAYING WITH POWER IN MOVIES, TELEVISION AND VIDEO GAMES:FROM MUPPET BABIES TO TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES, by Marsha Kinder. Here's what she says about the Ninja Turtles"
'...Far from being poisoned, corrupted, or disillusioned by toxic waste, junk food, substance abuse, urban decay, dysfunctional families, parental abandonment,homelessness, gang violence, or teenage traumas, these happy mutants actually thrive in the urban sewer and are strenghtened by such postmodern threats...'

The myth implies that the way to fight current dangers is by entering a supersystem where you can become a mutant yourself---that is, by a total immersion in consumerist mass culture...'

It is high time we put the final nails in the coffin of the opinion-respecting ,"conflicted", ambiguous sophistication i.e. the mellow mediocrity that is so sophisticated as to NOT fervently believe in a committment to much of anything.. save perhaps tolerance itself and great sex .

In the next post, I hope to address the post of Mr. Jimpy who has been equivocating mightily in regard to the use of the word 'greed' and may be harboring a fallacy that comes from the vile sort of thinking known as lateral thinking ....

Dear Mr.Jimpy ,

There is great curiosity at what you mean by making claims like : "artists are greedy", "well intentioned activists are greedy"and "everyone is greedy" ? Please explain what you mean ...

I hope that your not one of those people who believes that weird belief that any goal that a person has is somehow self serving because is a goal that they want to reach ? That weird fallacy which has become popular these days and has been quite popular with the pepsi generation and the MTV generation ---is based on a wrong ,cutesy, bizarre sort of thinking known as lateral thinking . Such a fallacy is based on the false assumption that because someone seeks to serve a goal that this somehow means the goal is somehow part of their personal self ----which it is not. Just because someone serves a goal that does NOT mean that the goal is part of their personal self . A goal can be an abstract item to which the personal self has but a subordinate relationship . Having a subordinate relation to a goal is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than having that goal being a part of one's personal self . TOTALLY DIFFERENT !

The weird fallacy is also fostered by people equivocating on the word 'want'. There is a big difference in (A) wanting a given agenda for what are, putatively, ethical purposes and

(B) wanting an agenda for personal gain /such as having esteem of one's self or bodily arousal and similar NON-altruistic purposes.

That (A) and (B) are completely and totally *separate*. We should NEVER gloss over the difference between that (A) and that (B) !

As for the ancient hunters , they were NOT necessarily greedy in wanting the best game animals provided they were willing to share and did NOT overhunt the animals in the area.

The corner store barber is NOT necessarily greedy if the only reason he charges the prices he does is to have funds to pay off bills and/or cover the expenses of the basic necessities of life .

Those uses of resources are a far cry from the corporate creep who wants to have more cars and other acquisitions *not* because they'd have to do such deeds to avoid bankruptcy or face losing a home , but simply because they merely want to have more than other people because they treat life as if it were some game .

Genuine moral or esthetic idealism has never led to any injustices or atrocities in history . The thinking that says otherwise is both abysmally weird and concurrently inaccurate !

I couldn't resist checking in on Ish over the weekend.

I want 20 Ish Points for my prophetic reference to a "thrice-posted barely formatted rant." I mean, c'mon, that's good stuff!

In better news - got them naked. Gotta get back to the game.

Didn’t log on this weekend, but am back now all refreshed. To sum up:
Jimpy said
“Anyway, back to the "point." You're right - we disagree. I DO think we ask for reality television and more violence in our video games. And thus we get it. I feel like blaming marketing and 'lack of alternative' and such is a cop-out.”
Just because we accept something, or even like it, doesn’t mean we asked for it. Do people ever ask to pay taxes or to pay really high rents in Manhattan? Did the employees in Factory towns ask to give back their salary to the company store? No. But all these things were and are widely accepted. If you asked people how they would like to eat, they would almost always say “healthy”. Yet these same people will often go into McDonalds or eat fatty/salty food. All these people can’t be liars. They don’t want to, but it is hard to resist when the worse alternative is made so easy and appealing. Restaurants and chains take advantage of this weakness, and often aid it by downplaying the health risk of certain food. There are too many other examples to go into.

Jimpy also said
The original author is quite right - the hypocrisy of attacking an obscure and hidden part of a video game (inaccessible without great effort) while honoring the cherished traditions of football (along with the spectacular injury/violence/crime/sexism associated with it) is tragic.
On this, I agree. Football is so entrenched in our culture it would be impossible to attack. But our elected officials should attack where and what they can.

Now to Jason, you said:
“Often the complexification fostered by much of mass media saturated culture (including how newer technology--- which is not necessarily intrinsically bad---being affected by the people that run and design the machines being influenced by murky sensibilities---and thus making life complicated , awkward) itself can help to *subtily desensitize* people to what is bad. In doing so, it consequently undermines what is good .”
The only complexity I am talking about is people’s interdepancy on each other. Yes, this will go hand in technological complexity; and every other kind of complexity. This is what defines advanced culture and cultures naturally advance (if they advance at all) in this direction. I agree that mass media can desensitize people to what is bad. And that is my point: mass media is not a natural force; it is intelligently designed by moneyed interest

You went on to say:
“So many people these days have developed the weird pattern of interrupting someone and presumptously saying stuff like, "I already know what your going to say" and similar thought , even before the person has been given the chance to complete the question or the statement they seek to ask. I've noticed that ugly, weird tendency on the rise with clerks and other personel with goverment jobs such as that work for hospitals (even a few lazy-minded doctors) towards presumptive interruption where they take part of what someone says and run with it and thereby discourage fair , careful dialogue .”
Yup, that sounds like a real problem. I myself hate when people talk on their cell phones in public places.

You responded to jimpy by saying:
“As for the ancient hunters , they were NOT necessarily greedy in wanting the best game animals provided they were willing to share and did NOT over hunt the animals in the area.”
Actually, Jimpy is right on this one. Historical and archeological evidence show that hunters almost always over hunted their prey and then were real jerks about it. That’s why the Native Americans had no horses, so they built no immunities, so they were killed by the millions by pig germs. Highly suggest you read Guns, Germs, and Steele, by Jared Diamond.

Now you've lost me.

If you asked people how they would like to live, they would no doubt say, "rent free and tax free." And yet, given the choice between living in Manhattan for a lot of rent/taxes, or in Yuma, Arizona for less of both, they vote with their feet. Or are you suggesting that is another manipulated choice?

Of course people will *say* they want to eat well. They will also *say* want to be better organized, spend more time with their family, exercise more, give more to charity, etc. etc. etc.

But what they *do* is eat what tastes yummy, spend time doing things they think are fun, sit around because exercise is hard and keep their money because . . . well, they have better things to do with it than just give it away.

I happen to think that the main reason they do these things is I believe that the vast majority of people tend to act in their short-term self interest. They do what feels good now. Not because they have been marketed too, but because that is the way people are. The marketing and such certainly helps them along, but they are well disposed towards that easy path.

It is not hard to resist McDonalds because of the Grimace. It is hard to resist McDonalds because french fries taste better than brussel sprouts. And brussel sprouts might be "better" in the long run, but french fries are "better" right now.

I guess, all in all, I find that "monied interests" cater to our vices, rather than create them. And to that extent, yes, they are complicit in their extension. But they aren't creating this demand - they are simply feeding it. Who needs to create demand, when so much comes pre-packed in the frail human soul?

Jimpy, has anyone ever done anything or stayed anywhere even though they DIDN'T want to? All those South African Blacks must have really liked Apartheid for all those years. Otherwise, according to you, they would have either all left or have overthrown the White government on their own. All those people who work in sweatshops, both in the US and abroad, they must be having a good time making our shoes. First year Associates, staying at the law firms until 2 AM? They are there because they love the work law firms do, not because the powerful partner will fire them (making it impossible for them to payback their law school loans) if they even complain. Large Corporations, and the people who run them, exert the same kind of power as the rulers in all the above examples.

And as for "I guess, all in all, I find that "monied interests" cater to our vices, rather than create them." I have 2 points: 1) The government should protect us from those that exploit our vices to such an extent they harm us and 2) They do create need by manipulating information (PR, Advertising, funding pro-industry science) and by influencing the legislative agenda (lobbying, PR, funding politicians that work for them).

Wow. The choice of living in Manhattan or buying a video game is being compared to Apartheid. You sure you don't want to jump straight to the nazis? You know, it really isn't an internet debate until someone invokes the nazis.

As for having the government "protect us from those who exploit our vices?" No thank you, commie.

Did I make you smile with the "commie" line? :-)

Please tell me at least that you didn't mean to compare first year associates to people living under apartheid. I was there, man! It ain't that bad! :-)

I did smile at the commie line! I haven't been called a Commie since 2000, when I voted for Nader. Ah, good times!

And yes, I did try hard to avoid jumping to Hitler, likely there are plenty of examples of people living in unhappy situations. Besides the Nazis came to power in a coalition of Nationalist, Industrialist, and Royalists. So it is not really relevent to the U.S. today. We don't have any Royalist. Although I enjoy an indy can of tuna on a Kaiser every once and a while.

And Jimpy, I am sorry you had to suffer under Aparthied. If it makes you feel better, I never played Sun City.

"I never played Sun City."

Ah, but did you play Sim City?!?

Seriously, though, I believe that there is a categorical difference between the choices one makes under capitalism and the choices one makes under a state regime. No one is going to throw you in jail if you don't eat at McDonald's.

"No one is going to throw you in jail if you don't eat at McDonald's."

Yet, my friend. Yet.

EPISTLE TO PATRICK

Good to correspond yet again . I read the latest response from you . However, I would like you to respond to the question as to how the statements I have presented about pop culture are overstated ? I don't want to put words in your mouth .

I admire that you apparently find pop culture repulsive , but I hope that you are NOT making some sort of plea for moderation/for thinking that we should "look at it from the other side a little" . I hope you are NOT meaning that ; after all there are NOT two or more sides to every issue and it never ceases to perplex when a progressive minded person who is opposed to what is crass get's a little ambivalent and wants to respect the opinions of those who support what is crass a little bit and talk the "its-all-relative' hogwash .I'm NOT claiming that you are doing that yet, so please clarify.

As for the matter of the ancient hunters and the question of greed, I was talking conditionally in terms of what parameters an ancient hunter would have to trangress in order to be greedy . Hunting itself is not a priori greedy ---it all depends if the ancient hunters did overhunt. Probably a lot of them did overhunt and thus were greedy. I was just objecting to the possible lateral thinking/equivocation at work in the statement presented by Jimpy that any ancient hunter is greedy merely just because they wanted the best parts even without there being any other factors to show greed .

There is a danger in using a term such as 'greed' in an open-ended and flexible manner . Often there is a lot of that lateral thinking going on these days ----it especially misleading because of the loose surface plausibility . However, such an open ended use of a word prevents doing justice to an issue .

The monied interests you are right have a vested interest in using the mass media to put out vapid , superficial, tacky junk . Yet the profit motive is not the only motive apparently for the junk being put out in the media . Celebrating crassness and tackiness has become an ideology in and of itself : a kind of quasi-culture that is perpetuated for more purposes than just money making . There is often such a level of depravity where people simply like the culturally entropic milleu of death/perversity/tackiness/dysfunctionality/tragedy/gossip .

Here during this present summer there is a young woman who visited Aruba who is missing under tragic circumstances and media pundits on CNN and FOX present this as some lurid entertainment, even showing pictures of the young woman and fellow cheerleaders in Alabama back when she was in school making the disappearance look like some weird , lurid suspense movie. Here we have in the mainstream media appeals to dark voyeurism disguised as concern for a person and "solving the case" . It's bloody weird! And people being exposed to this sort of media commodification of the tragedies in peoples' lives are becoming desensitized to how weird it is . That weird CNN show called "the Nancy Grace Show" is a case in point of unwholesome reporting .

Heck , with hurricane season coming on, we have, like last season (2004) reporters who have the weird demeanor where they treat life threatening hurricanes like they are some sort of fun entertainment .

This trend is often aided and abbetted by the outlook of much pop psychology that tries to mislead us into thinking that we should somehow accept dysfunctionality as part of life and merely manage it/balance it and *not* take the right approach of getting rid of dysfunctionality altogether .

Part of this pop psychology is often the false, misleading propaganda that would mislead us into thinking that there never were ideal human relationships in the past , that every closet somehow had skeletons, that were just now more aware of dysfunctionality now or they just covered it up better in the past blah blah blah ...the false propaganda goes on . If one examines that glib (false) claim which would have us believe that dysfunctionality was as pervasive in eras past as it is now one finds that it doesn't add up . For if so many people found dysfunctionality/unwholesome activities in the past distasteful enough to cover up on such a wide basis then it would follow that many of those people if they found it distasteful enough to cover up , that many of them would then find such activities distasteful enough to thwart and avoid .

This is not to say that depraved activities did not occur behind closed doors here and there in enclaves in eras past (such as the Victorian era) . But now dysfunctional/unwholesome activity has become celebrated and is NO longer relegated to enclaves ----but society in North America (except for some secluded communities of quaintness and decency)----has become awash with it . Television shows like "Grounded for Life", "King of The Hill", "Six Feet Under"... celebrate it .

I am no liberal (at least not in the contemporary sense) but I would like to call the bluff of the conservatives of the Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Tim LeHaye and Jerry Jenkins sort who give lip service to traditional values and yet either do little or nothing to stop the mass culture inane weirdness ---or often actively contribute to such as with the Left Behind book series and movie junk that pedals a loose interpretation of the book Of Revelation mixed with lurid entertainment. Do the "conservatives" truly desire a return to a lost Mayberry or Good Ole Summertime America where people still tipped their hats to women and young men helped old ladies cross the street or by "return to traditional values" do they mean to endorse something different from that altogether .

Many of the contemporary conservatives seem altogether too cozy with the metrosexual trendy mass culture . As a person who supports good causes that often get labelled "right wing" such as ending abortion on demand , keeping kids from being exposed to liberated sex junk , I find it quite incongruous that those who support good causes of that sort get associate by the broad brush of the media with these creepy pop culture supporting yuppie sorts who accept pop culture in all its metrosexual polymorphous perversity and gossip disguised as news .

But discussions of this sort should always return to the perrenial insight that we must always keep in mind: That which is *intrinsically* a virtue should never be diluted but should always be taken to extremes .

Extremism in the defense of virtue is NO vice !

EPISTLE TO PATRICK

Good to correspond yet again . I read the latest response from you . However, I would like you to respond to the question as to how the statements I have presented about pop culture are overstated ? I don't want to put words in your mouth .

I admire that you apparently find pop culture repulsive , but I hope that you are NOT making some sort of plea for moderation/for thinking that we should "look at it from the other side a little" . I hope you are NOT meaning that ; after all there are NOT two or more sides to every issue and it never ceases to perplex when a progressive minded person who is opposed to what is crass get's a little ambivalent and wants to respect the opinions of those who support what is crass a little bit and talk the "its-all-relative' hogwash .I'm NOT claiming that you are doing that yet, so please clarify.

As for the matter of the ancient hunters and the question of greed, I was talking conditionally in terms of what parameters an ancient hunter would have to trangress in order to be greedy . Hunting itself is not a priori greedy ---it all depends if the ancient hunters did overhunt. Probably a lot of them did overhunt and thus were greedy. I was just objecting to the possible lateral thinking/equivocation at work in the statement presented by Jimpy that any ancient hunter is greedy merely just because they wanted the best parts even without there being any other factors to show greed .

There is a danger in using a term such as 'greed' in an open-ended and flexible manner . Often there is a lot of that lateral thinking going on these days ----it especially misleading because of the loose surface plausibility . However, such an open ended use of a word prevents doing justice to an issue .

The monied interests you are right have a vested interest in using the mass media to put out vapid , superficial, tacky junk . Yet the profit motive is not the only motive apparently for the junk being put out in the media . Celebrating crassness and tackiness has become an ideology in and of itself : a kind of quasi-culture that is perpetuated for more purposes than just money making . There is often such a level of depravity where people simply like the culturally entropic milleu of death/perversity/tackiness/dysfunctionality/tragedy/gossip .

Here during this present summer there is a young woman who visited Aruba who is missing under tragic circumstances and media pundits on CNN and FOX present this as some lurid entertainment, even showing pictures of the young woman and fellow cheerleaders in Alabama back when she was in school making the disappearance look like some weird , lurid suspense movie. Here we have in the mainstream media appeals to dark voyeurism disguised as concern for a person and "solving the case" . It's bloody weird! And people being exposed to this sort of media commodification of the tragedies in peoples' lives are becoming desensitized to how weird it is . That weird CNN show called "the Nancy Grace Show" is a case in point of unwholesome reporting .

Heck , with hurricane season coming on, we have, like last season (2004) reporters who have the weird demeanor where they treat life threatening hurricanes like they are some sort of fun entertainment .

This trend is often aided and abbetted by the outlook of much pop psychology that tries to mislead us into thinking that we should somehow accept dysfunctionality as part of life and merely manage it/balance it and *not* take the right approach of getting rid of dysfunctionality altogether .

Part of this pop psychology is often the false, misleading propaganda that would mislead us into thinking that there never were ideal human relationships in the past , that every closet somehow had skeletons, that were just now more aware of dysfunctionality now or they just covered it up better in the past blah blah blah ...the false propaganda goes on . If one examines that glib (false) claim which would have us believe that dysfunctionality was as pervasive in eras past as it is now one finds that it doesn't add up . For if so many people found dysfunctionality/unwholesome activities in the past distasteful enough to cover up on such a wide basis then it would follow that many of those people if they found it distasteful enough to cover up , that many of them would then find such activities distasteful enough to thwart and avoid .

This is not to say that depraved activities did not occur behind closed doors here and there in enclaves in eras past (such as the Victorian era) . But now dysfunctional/unwholesome activity has become celebrated and is NO longer relegated to enclaves ----but society in North America (except for some secluded communities of quaintness and decency)----has become awash with it . Television shows like "Grounded for Life", "King of The Hill", "Six Feet Under"... celebrate it .

I am no liberal (at least not in the contemporary sense) but I would like to call the bluff of the conservatives of the Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Tim LeHaye and Jerry Jenkins sort who give lip service to traditional values and yet either do little or nothing to stop the mass culture inane weirdness ---or often actively contribute to it, such as with the Left Behind book series and movie junk that pedals a loose interpretation of the book Of Revelation mixed with lurid entertainment. Do the "conservatives" truly desire a return to a lost Mayberry or Good Ole Summertime America where people still tipped their hats to women and young men helped old ladies cross the street or by "return to traditional values" do they mean to endorse something different from that altogether .

Many of the contemporary conservatives seem altogether too cozy with the metrosexual trendy mass culture . As a person who supports good causes that often get labelled "right wing" such as ending abortion on demand , keeping kids from being exposed to liberated sex junk , I find it quite incongruous that those who support good causes of that sort get associated by the broad brush of the media with these creepy pop culture supporting yuppie sort of conservatives who accept pop culture in all its metrosexual polymorphous perversity and gossip disguised as news .

But discussions of this sort should always return to the perrenial insight that we must always keep in mind: That which is *intrinsically* a virtue should never be diluted but should always be taken to extremes .

Extremism in the defense of virtue is NO vice !

EPISTLE TO PATRICK

Good to correspond yet again . I read the latest response from you . However, I would like you to respond to the question as to how the statements I have presented about pop culture are overstated ? I don't want to put words in your mouth .

I admire that you apparently find pop culture repulsive , but I hope that you are NOT making some sort of plea for moderation/for thinking that we should "look at it from the other side a little" . I hope you are NOT meaning that ; after all there are NOT two or more sides to every issue and it never ceases to perplex when a progressive minded person who is opposed to what is crass get's a little ambivalent and wants to respect the opinions of those who support what is crass a little bit and talk the "its-all-relative' hogwash .I'm NOT claiming that you are doing that yet, so please clarify.

As for the matter of the ancient hunters and the question of greed, I was talking conditionally in terms of what parameters an ancient hunter would have to trangress in order to be greedy . Hunting itself is not a priori greedy ---it all depends if the ancient hunters did overhunt. Probably a lot of them did overhunt and thus were greedy. I was just objecting to the possible lateral thinking/equivocation at work in the statement presented by Jimpy that any ancient hunter is greedy merely just because they wanted the best parts even without there being any other factors to show greed .

There is a danger in using a term such as 'greed' in an open-ended and flexible manner . Often there is a lot of that lateral thinking going on these days ----it especially misleading because of the loose surface plausibility . However, such an open ended use of a word prevents doing justice to an issue .

The monied interests you are right have a vested interest in using the mass media to put out vapid , superficial, tacky junk . Yet the profit motive is not the only motive apparently for the junk being put out in the media . Celebrating crassness and tackiness has become an ideology in and of itself : a kind of quasi-culture that is perpetuated for more purposes than just money making . There is often such a level of depravity where people simply like the culturally entropic milleu of death/perversity/tackiness/dysfunctionality/tragedy/gossip .

Here during this present summer there is a young woman who visited Aruba who is missing under tragic circumstances and media pundits on CNN and FOX present this as some lurid entertainment, even showing pictures of the young woman and fellow cheerleaders in Alabama back when she was in school making the disappearance look like some weird , lurid suspense movie. Here we have in the mainstream media appeals to dark voyeurism disguised as concern for a person and "solving the case" . It's bloody weird! And people being exposed to this sort of media commodification of the tragedies in peoples' lives are becoming desensitized to how weird it is . That weird CNN show called "the Nancy Grace Show" is a case in point of unwholesome reporting .

Heck , with hurricane season coming on, we have, like last season (2004) reporters who have the weird demeanor where they treat life threatening hurricanes like they are some sort of fun entertainment .

This trend is often aided and abbetted by the outlook of much pop psychology that tries to mislead us into thinking that we should somehow accept dysfunctionality as part of life and merely manage it/balance it and *not* take the right approach of getting rid of dysfunctionality altogether .

Part of this pop psychology is often the false, misleading propaganda that would mislead us into thinking that there never were ideal human relationships in the past , that every closet somehow had skeletons, that were just now more aware of dysfunctionality now or they just covered it up better in the past blah blah blah ...the false propaganda goes on . If one examines that glib (false) claim which would have us believe that dysfunctionality was as pervasive in eras past as it is now one finds that it doesn't add up . For if so many people found dysfunctionality/unwholesome activities in the past distasteful enough to cover up on such a wide basis then it would follow that many of those people if they found it distasteful enough to cover up , that many of them would then find such activities distasteful enough to thwart and avoid .

This is not to say that depraved activities did not occur behind closed doors here and there in enclaves in eras past (such as the Victorian era) . But now dysfunctional/unwholesome activity has become celebrated and is NO longer relegated to enclaves ----but society in North America (except for some secluded communities of quaintness and decency)----has become awash with it . Television shows like "Grounded for Life", "King of The Hill", "Six Feet Under"... celebrate it .

I am no liberal (at least not in the contemporary sense) but I would like to call the bluff of the conservatives of the Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Tim LeHaye and Jerry Jenkins sort who give lip service to traditional values and yet either do little or nothing to stop the mass culture inane weirdness ---or often actively contribute to it, such as with the Left Behind book series and movie junk that pedals a loose interpretation of the book Of Revelation mixed with lurid entertainment. Do the "conservatives" truly desire a return to a lost Mayberry or Good Ole Summertime America where people still tipped their hats to women and young men helped old ladies cross the street or by "return to traditional values" do they mean to endorse something different from that altogether .

Many of the contemporary conservatives seem altogether too cozy with the metrosexual trendy mass culture . As a person who supports good causes that often get labelled "right wing" such as ending abortion on demand , keeping kids from being exposed to liberated sex junk , I find it quite incongruous that those who support good causes of that sort get associated by the broad brush of the media with these creepy pop culture supporting yuppie sort of conservatives who accept pop culture in all its metrosexual polymorphous perversity and gossip disguised as news .

But discussions of this sort should always return to the perrenial insight that we must always keep in mind: That which is *intrinsically* a virtue should never be diluted but should always be taken to extremes .

Extremism in the defense of virtue is NO vice !

How's that "no dupe" feature supposed to work again, ME-L?

Double Ish Points for me, I suspect!