Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: "U.S. pop culture seen as plague"
> >From: "Ben" ArGee45{at}hotmail.com
> >Date: 1/7/2005 7:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >
> >Hyerdahl1 wrote:
> >> >Subject: Re: "U.S. pop culture seen as plague"
> >> >From: Batroc Z Leaper hotfrog{at}teleport.com
> >> >Date: 12/31/2004 10:26 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id:

> >> >
> >> >In article
,
> >> >yared22311{at}yahoo.com (yared22311{at}yahoo.com) says...
> >> >
> >> >> U.S. pop culture seen as plague
> >> >> Special Report: If there is one proposition on which Western
> >European
> >> >> elites and radical Islamists, American social
conservatives and
> >snobby
> >> >> latte town aesthetes all seem to agree, it is this: American
> >popular>>
> >> culture is a subversive thing.> at
> >> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041230-114327-7178r.htm
> >>
> >> If you believe that, then wouldn't it be best to blame those who
> >support >such?
> >> I mean ball players can't become superstar millionaires without
men
> >in Ohio
> >
> >And women in Ohio...I don't see bleachers at sporting events filled
> >only with men.
>
> The bleachers are filled mostly with men and their arm dangles.  I
don't >really
> consider such as full and complete women.  :-)

Because they enjoy football and go to a game with their
boyfriends/husbands?  So what would be a "full and complete" woman to
you, one who goes to The Vagina Monologues with her female lover?
Sheesh.

>  How many single women do you
> suppose attend stadium events?  :-)

By themselves?  Not many, I would suppose.  But then, not many single
men go by themselves either.  It's sort of a group activity

>
> >
> >> paying huge amounts of money to see them play,
> >
> >Watching sports on television doesn't involve "huge amounts" of
money
> >to the home viewers--my wife and I buy the NFL package every year
for
> >around $100.  The big dollars come from advertiser revenue, and
> they're>targeting guess who? (hint: It's not the ones in the stands
with
> a>football helmets painted on their heads).
>
> Your wife may or may not have any 'say' over how the money is spent;
after >all,
> she doesn't have dominion and control over the money if she's not the
earning
> spouse.

???

> >
> >> and little teen girls in Utah
> >> pay to see their latest supermodel.
> >
> >Girls everywhere emulate whatever entertainment bimbo du jour MTV
> >foists on them (before you begin keening on about how I don't
mention boys,
> bear in mind I have little more than sneers for boy bands as>well).
In fact, I
> would suspect girls in Utah would be a little more
> >immune than the ones in NY and LA.
> >
> Not really.  The girls in Utah have nothing else to do.  :-)

And you know this how?

>   It's a well
> known 'dirty secret' that the little towns also host more drug use.

You would be wrong.

Here's >an
> interesting tidbit; the vice squad in SLC, Ut. has to triple its
force when
> those good Mormon boys come to town for their semi annual conference.

Another interesting tidbit is that this happens wherever a huge
conference comes into any city.

>
> >>  Blaming the coastal regions of our country> may not be the answer
here.
> >
> >I think that given the huge influence NY and LA have on our
culture,>for good
> or ill, pointing them out as prime causes is exactly right.
>
> ...and you are perfectly free to point out wrongfully.  It's the
parts of the
> nation who are best educated that will tend to lead the way to the
future, >and
> those folks tend to be in the big coastal cities.

I see.  So you insist I'm wrong in pointing out the influence that NY
and LA have on the culture, and then claim that the people living there
are the ones to lead us into the future.  :)

>
> >
> >> We vote with our dollars.
> >
> >The pop entertainment culture targets those too young to make
fine>cultural
> distinctions such as realizing that not only is Brittney>Spears about
as vapid
> as they come, but also that her keepers dress her
> >funny, and yes, they *are* fake.
> >
> ????  I don't see how any of that matters since little Utah girlies
will
> pretend to be her, with or without your permission.  After all, if
you can't
> grow up to be all you can be, you might as well be Brittany, eh?

Of course, none of this is responsive to what I said.

>
> Fred Reed has a good term for it.  He calls it Hollyork.  New
York>City> >and
> Los Angeles are the festering pus holes of American
culture.>>Eliminate>> them,
> and the rest of the country is pretty decent.
> >>
> >> So, you're suggesting that no one in Kansas reads porn created in
LA?
> >:-)
> >
> >Take a reeeaaallll close look at your choice of words here.
>
> I already have.

Obviously not.

> >
> And what about Las Vegas?  There are some sex shows there that would
> >blow > >your>> sox off, no?  :-)
> >
> >Well, the tightness of my socks aside, what about it?  No one said
NY>and LA
> were the *only* places, just the predominant ones.
>
> Again, most of both what you might call the 'good', the 'bad' and
even the
> 'ugly' tends to occur in big cities, like NY, Chicago, LA, Frisco,
etc.
> Trying to pillory them is simply pointless.

Who's pillorying them?  I'm pillorying pop culture, and two of the
biggest influences are NY and LA.  Can you make that distinction?  I
don't dislike cities simply because they *are* cities.

> I guess what you really want to >do
> is to challenge those
>  states where the majority of EDUCATED people reside.

Nope, I guess you *can't* make that distinction.

> >
> >This is not only a leap of (il)logic on your part, it also reveals
> your>overall bigotry and willingness to engage in stereotyping.  I've
not>noted
> a lack of educated people in all my travels (which include NY and
> >LA).
>
> Well, the big schools tend to be in or near big cities, Ben.  Even
you must >see
> some logic there.  :-)  Most folks who use their education use it IN
the big
> cities.  And, yes, while some educated folks might retire to Idaho,
the
> likelihood of more educated people living there than in Chicago is a
joke.

It's your belief that those who have university degrees and live in
cities are superior to those who don't.  You would be wrong.

>
> >
> >What you're really saying is that only those with an
> uncritical>Marxist/socialist bent and a slavish devotion to
trendiness and
> pop>culture are, in your opinion, educated.
>
> Not at all;  I'm saying that those who are educated are not only
educated, >but
> tend to migrate to places with greater (not lesser) opportunity.
That isn't
> Podunk Utah.

Two women graduate from Harvard with a law degree.  One goes back to
her home town of 20,000 and becomes a public defender.  Another joins a
law firm in NYC.  According to your belief, the one in NYC is superior.

Speaking of Harvard, I see that Larry Summers appears to have generated
some heat by simply speaking the truth.  Nancy Hopkins, who is
apparently truth-phobic, found herself unable to breathe, becoming
physically ill, and having to leave as soon as he made the comments.

Now, if I knew nothing more about those two, I'd be able to tell you
that Summers would approach problems in some areas with more academic
rigor than Hopkins.  I'd also be able to tell you that Hopkins
apparently feels no shame at trying to influence or stop discussion
through intimidation and use of histrionics instead of actually looking
at the issues. And finally, I could easily point out that Hopkins is an
example of indoctrination overwhelming education.

>
>  To a person with a broader>mind, however, those types of people are
not so
> much educated as>indoctrinated.
>
> To a person with a limited mind, education is often confused with the
word,
> intelligence.  Educated folks are those who simply pursue higher
education;
> they may or may not be more intelligent that your Idaho, porn using,
sports
> funding, wife beater.  :-)

All of which are more prevalent in CA than Idaho, are they not?

>
> >
>  In that way, you could> bind the nation to the stupid and the
supersticious.
> >
> >Is this how an educated person would spell "superstitious"?  (I
know,spelling
> flames are sort of tacky, but you gave me this on a platter).>:)
>
> I sure did.  :-)  And yes, they are tacky.

Yep, they are.  If this part of the discussion hadn't involved
education, I would have been able to resist.

>
> >
>   Good going.  :-)  Let's>> look to Utah for guidence.  :-)
> >
> >You mean "guidance"?  (Sorry--that's twice now).
>
> Spelling never was my strong point, especially, when in a hurry.
>
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, New York City and Hollywood are the only things
most
> >of>> the world sees.
> >>
> >> When the folks in the other 48 states attach their own sense
of>importance
> to Hollywood and NYC, what else can you expect?  Tell that teen boy
in>TX to
> >stop>> buying rap created in LA that demeans women,
> >
> >Tell the entertainment industry to stop packaging that crap in such
> an>appealing format, and stop targeting our young people, who are far
> too>impressionable.
>
> Well,  it seems to me that it's up to parents to create protections
for their
> kids, and that art has oft taken forms not particularly valued by the
'moral
> majority'.

I agree that parents play a major role, but it's extremely tough for
them to compete with the deluge their kids are exposed to.

> However, you and I probably agree that much of the 'art' out there is
crap to
> us.

We would agree there.  I'd also claim that much of what is passed as
'art' is really only entertainment, but I recognize that's a matter of
opinion.

> My own grown kids certainly have their own tastes in music and art
but crap
> lyrics were not allowed in our home when they were younger, and I've
noticed
> that the girls in my extended family never played with Barbie or
Brittany.  :-)
>
> >
> >> and make sure you don't buy
> >> tickets to see Mike Tyson, the rapist ear biter.
> >
> >I don't.  I also don't buy or read anything by Michael Moore.
>
> Well, I'm not sure that's relevant to this conversation;  I mean I
don't see
> films by Mel Gibson either, but it's not really relevant to the
subject.

And since when have we ever stuck strictly to the original subjects?
:)

>
>  But>then, I'm experienced enough to know he's (perhaps literally)
full
> of>shit.
>
> In what way?  I mean Moore simply exposed Bush and gun sales, no?

No.  Moore used creative editing and disingenous conversations to slant
a point of view.  I'm not a big Bush fan, but I am a big advocate for
accuracy.

>  The people
> voted for Bush anyway.  I don't see that Moore did anything wrong.
OTOH, Mel
> Gibson made a film that glorified the torture of Christ while blaming
Jews.
> The LIFE of Christ is much more importand an example than his
torture.

I guess that would depend on one's theological beliefs.  If your
beliefs encompass the concept that Christ's suffering was necessary to
redeem mankind, then I guess that would be important.

>
> >>  You see, those are the very
> >> folks who support the culture we have.
> >
> >Yes and no.  In many respects, the entertainment industry creates a
> >market and then panders to it.
>
> Ah, you mean like religious zealots who find some meaning in being
voyeurs in
> Christ's torture and death.  Hmmmm

???



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/23/05 6:36:15 PM ---