Well...if you really want me to answer this question, I will...but in
general I try to stay away from this kinda stuff because it makes my head
explode. I'll try to be calm and reasonable about this.

Re: the v-chip...see, when I was a kid, I knew what hours I was allowed to
watch TV, and what hours I wasn't. I knew what programs I was allowed to
watch, and what programs I wasn't. It wasn't done with a chip in a TV
set, it was done when my parents looked at me, the time, or the tube, and
said, "Okay, that's it, up to bed now." For my money, for starters, the
v-chip is an abrogation of responsibility by parents. It's the modern-day
answer to everything: build a chip, find a quick and easy solution.

Never mind that the criteria are so vague that all kinds of stuff is going
to get through even with the chip set (when I was working with ABC, you
had censors and parents groups who considered a door slam to be an act of
violence, and counted it as such)...never mind that you're subordinating
your view of what your limits are to an unseen group of TV execs or
monitors who will decide what rating to give a show, a rating which you
might quite disagree with, on a ranger of scales that are *very*
subjective (they use about 5 levels of numerical values assigned to
suggestive language or action and the like), never mind that parents
should be watching TV *with* their kids (yes, I know that we have latchkey
kids, and single parents, but there are other ways of solving
this)...never mind ALL that....

Most of what is violent on TV is movies run on commercial networks, not so
much regular TV programs. The majority of produced programs are still
sitcoms. So for me, the whole thing is based on a false premise. But
more than that, it seems outrageous for congress to on the one hand try
and repeal the assault weapon ban, then try and regulate TV violence.
It's inconsistent.

They're not dealing with the problem, they're dealing with the PICTURE of
the problem. If we make the picture go away, the problem will go away.
No it won't. It will be solved by sane gun laws (I'm not against owning,
but registering seems a good idea), and dedicated assaults on poverty,
unemployment, crime, drug use and the eradication of hope. It will be
solved by parents and kids spending time together, rather than letting a
chip determine what they watch on TV. It will be solved by education for
the young, and firm punishment for the guilty.

But see, that takes nerve. And it isn't easily done. And may be
unpopular in some sectors. So it's easier, and gets more coverage, to
attack *Hollywood* when things get bad. It's fuzzy thinking, dead-catting
and scapegoating, nothing less. When people were frightened by the Soviet
Union during the 50s, and the US couldn't actually *do* anything about
it...they turned on Hollywood and attacked all those commie sympathizers
undermining morality and creating a commie-ready society via words and
images. We can't fix violence, so now we turn again to the pictures of
the problem as though they *were* the problem.

If every violent program in the nation were blipped off the air for 48
hours, and replaced by reruns of the Donna Reed Show, there would not be
one less death in South Central LA, not one less drug overdose in Bed-Stuy
in New York, not one less Freeman in Montana. (At most you'd have several
more incidents of people shooting out their TVs.)

Here, for me, is the ultimate analogy. A few years ago here in town,
there was an anti-gun group that came up with the idea of a protest march.
They marched in front of a video store which had a big poster in the
front of it in which there was a huge picture of a gun. They marched in
front of the video store. Half a block down was a gun shop. Nobody
marched in front of the gun shop.


jms

Wes: sure, if there's anything in my post worth putting up on a wall,
assuming it isn't a Post Office wall...please, proceed. Thanks.


jms