Translate

Friday, May 27, 2022

HAS THE ENTERTAINMENT AND NEWS MEDIA (USUALLY OWNED BY THE SAME COMPANY, THINK ABC AND DISNEY) DULL OUR HORROR OF GRAPHIC VIOLENCE AND GRUSOME DEATHS?

 


Up until the 1960’s, the movie industry had a code of standards that they had to abide. It was a form of censorship for the common good and all the major religions of this country were involved in this censorship which Hollywood submitted. The Catholic Church had a powerful role too.

Movies could not show graphic violence, nudity and graphic sexual content and by the end of the movie the villain could not win, justice had to prevail. 

When killings were shown, it wasn’t graphic and often left to one’s imagination. 

Compare that the what has happened to our media (and what is easily available on the internet) where violence is shown in the most graphic way with slash and kill scenes so graphic and exaggerated as to be unbelievable. Think of the AMC long running and very popular series “The Walking Dead.”

The news now, shows graphic scenes of violence and death, not movie, make-believe, but actual. This was not the case during the Viet Nam War. What was shown publicly was sanitized. 

No American saw the actual assassination of President Kennedy captured by the mcgudder  home film. That wasn’t shown until the late 1970’s or early 80’s. It is very graphic and some networks, when showing  it, would show it in slow motion where the President’s head explodes and blood, skull and brain matter spray forward. For what reason do those who make these decisions to show these scenes do so?

And something I have never used, computer games are so unbelievably violent and addictive to those who pursue these games. 

Obviously, sociopaths and psychopaths often copy what they see in real life and in the various medias today. 

In my most humble opinion, our fascination with guns and the gun culture and limited laws on the selling of guns and the types of guns sold is a cause of these mass shootings, but the media and 24 hours news stations are a cause too and all them need regulations as we once had in this country. 

In addition to this, the Democratic party’s talking points concerning the choice to kill unborn children is very serious and politicians need to be called out on this and perhaps prosecuted for their part in the culture of death and its glorification in this country. Choice glorifies the murder of unborn babies. 

Let’s call it for what it is.


13 comments:

Mark said...

First of all, congratulations on your retirement, Father McDonald!

As for gun violence (and indeed violence more generally, including abortion—I have always considered that abortion is as much about violence as it is about sex), additional government regulation of guns will not end, or perhaps even significantly curb, gun violence anymore than additional government regulation of abortion will end, or perhaps even significantly curb, abortion.

This said, however, perhaps it will. What is needed are objective and impartial studies of the multiple causes of gun violence in the United States (and I emphasize objective and impartial—i.e., not paid for by, or an apologetic for, the NRA or the gun control lobby). We all have our “opinions” but what we need are facts—the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (and that goes for the multiple causes of abortion too, by the way). Once we have a proper grasp of the causes, we just might be in a position to do something to improve the situation.

Such studies should also compare the situation in the United States with the situation in other countries to see whether the United States is distinctive, or perhaps better said, why the United States appears to be distinctive, in this regard.

Admittedly, I am an idealist, but the thing about ideals is that if you strive for them and fall short you are likely to end up in a better place than if you do not have them in the first place.

The following article, focused just on evaluating the effectiveness of various kinds of gun regulation, illustrates the difficulty of the task:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/27/what-research-shows-effectiveness-gun-control-laws/

TJM said...

Washington Post and its sources objective? LOL

TJM said...

Gun violence is the worst in large Democratic run cities like Chicago. Even in so-called Red States like Missouri and Texas their murder capitals, St. Louis and Houston, respectively, are run by Democrats. The culture in those places is the problem, not guns.

Mark said...

TJM’s persistent juvenile, irrelevant, and disruptive comments. LOL.

Of course, we all know TJM never even read the WAPO article, and he does not even seem to have my comment with any degree of care because that comment clearly addressed all gun violence, including that occurring in Chicago, etc.

Father McDonald, is there any way to prevent TJM’s constant efforts to disrupt any attempt at rational, intelligent conversation? A less tolerant and patient person might have been driven away from the Blog a long time ago. But I won’t give him that satisfaction. Thank you.

TJM said...

Mark,

I did read the article and it was a mish mash of nonsense, only convincing those who already hold those views. It is the culture which has created this horrible problem, a culture whose roots are found in the Great Society programs which helped foster a dangerous underclass like in Chicago. Prior to 1966 there were no horrific school shootings and those were the days when many high schools had rifle clubs and students brought their weapons to school without incident. I doubt you even know that.

You really need to stop relying solely on leftwing sources like the Washington Post which foisted the false Russian Collusion Hoax on the Nation for 4 years and then called the Hunter Biden laptop matter Russian disinformation. You trust folks like that? The Washington Post is a “viewspaper” for the Left. And like most leftists you want your political opponents banned. I have not ask Father McDonald to ban you!

TJM said...

Mark,

Slightly off subject but this is from liberal Democrat Jonathan Turley regarding the Durham Trial (no DC jury will convict because Sussman's jury is full of his political peers). It is an indictment of the corrupt woman you likely voted for:

"With the jury out in the trial of former 2016 Clinton campaign counsel Michael Sussmann, the usual odds-takers appeared on cable news, rating the chances of a conviction. Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence against Sussmann, the jury’s makeup seems strikingly favorable for the defense.

One verdict, however, appears to need little deliberation. It concerns the Department of Justice, and particularly the FBI. The trial confirmed what many have long alleged about how top officials eagerly accepted any Russia collusion claim involving former President Trump’s 2016 campaign. Special counsel John Durham’s investigation, which led to Sussmann’s trial, is an indictment of a department and a bureau which, once again, appeared willfully blind as they were played by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Despite the trial judge’s rulings imposing strict limits on the scope of the trial evidence, Durham’s case still revealed new information on how the Russia collusion theory was pushed into the FBI and the media by the Clinton campaign. Perhaps the most ironic moment came when Sussmann’s defense team outed Clinton as personally approving the campaign’s effort to spread the claim that the Trump organization maintained a secret channel to the Kremlin through Russia’s Alfa Bank. "

Mark said...

I considered replying to TJM’s last two comments directly because he showed some glimmers of reason. But I refrained because he still insists on labeling me as a “leftist.” To be sure, I have called TJM a Trump supporter. But this is something he has never denied and indeed seems to be proud of. In contrast, I have consistently denied being a leftist, a Democrat, or as fitting into any other of the neat little pigeonholes TJM would like to put me in so that he can thoughtlessly dismiss my comments.

If TJM did read the WAPO article as he claimed, he did not read it very carefully, given that it was largely skeptical about the effectiveness of gun control regulations.

But you know what—from my perspective (which is an international one), all these arguments about whether this or that type of gun control regulation is more effective than another are akin to the lunatics in the asylum arguing about who is more insane. Sorry folks, but that is how I and much of the rest of the civilized world see the United States and its sick obsession with guns and gun rights as well as the twisted mangling of the Second Amendment that got us to this point.

As for the claim that all the nice little boys and girls brought guns to school before 1966 and everything was just peachy, well again sorry but here are some inconvenient facts about conditions in the asylum:

https://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings-united-states

Perhaps any individual shooting was not as “horrific” as the mass shootings today because the perpetrators did not use weapons of war designed to destroy a human body.

And as for the Jonathan Turley quoted passage, I have already commented that you need to read the Mueller Report. TJM (and for all I know, perhaps Turley) want you to believe there was no collusion. Not so. There was plenty of evidence of “collusion” but there was insufficient evidence of criminal “conspiracy” or “coordination.” As a lawyer, TJM knows very well that just because a prosecutor cannot prove that a defendant committed a crime by the very high standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not mean the defendant didn’t do it. As to why Muller couldn’t find evidence supporting a criminal case by that standard:

“The Report cited several impediments to investigators' ability to acquire information, including witnesses invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, witnesses deleting electronic communications or using encrypted or self-destructing messaging apps, limitations of interviewing attorneys or individuals asserting they were members of the media, information obtained through subpoenas that was screened from investigators due to legal privilege, and false or incomplete testimony provided by witnesses.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report


Mark said...

And to set the record straight, I did not ask for TJM to be banned. Although banning him would certainly solve the problem I described, it is not the only strategy available to Father McDonald, or indeed the rest of us who are interested in rational, respectful conversation.

TJM said...

Mark,

And banning you would solve the problem too!

If you take out the crime statistics of major cities in the US, almost all controlled by the Democratic Party by the way for decades, US gun violence is in line with much of the world. The article you cited did not deal with the underlying cause, the culture in these large cities.

Wikipedia is another left leaning source, not Encyclopedia Brittanica. I assume you respect Alan Dershowitz. He has mentioned many times that even if you could prove collusion, collusion is not a crime. The Russian Collusion Hoax was pushed by the corrupt Clinton campaign and its lackeys in the media. If anyone “colluded” with Russia it was the Clintons and now the Bidens. While SOS Hillary brokered a deal whereby 20% of the US uranium supply was sold to Russia in exchange for a multi- million dollar “donation” to the Clinton Foundation and Bill received $500k for a 30 minute speech there. Biden of course upended US energy independence thereby causing the price of oil to skyrocket and giving Putin the petro dollars to wage war in the Ukraine. Of course our media can’t or won’t connect the dots.

Even you cannot deny that working men and women were better off under President Trump: real wage gains, low inflation, inexpensive gas and food prices, unless of course you subscribe to the Paul Krugman School of Economics

TJM said...

Mark,

As to wikipedia, this is how they describe Breitbart and Fox versus CNN and MSNBC:

"Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart, or Breitbart.com) is an American far-right[5] syndicated news, opinion and commentary[6][7]"

"The Fox News Channel, abbreviated FNC, commonly known as Fox News, and stylized in all caps, is an American multinational conservative cable news television channel based in New York City.[3][4][5]"

"The Cable News Network (CNN) is a multinational news-based pay television channel headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S..[2][3][4] It is owned by CNN Global, which is part of Warner Bros. Discovery.[5]"

"MSNBC is an American news-based pay television cable channel based in New York City. It is owned by the NBCUniversal News Group division of NBCUniversal (a subsidiary of Comcast)."

Notice there are no ideological labels attached to CNN and MSNBC even they are clearly leftwing. I would expect a law professor to be more discerning in his sources and be able to detect bias, no matter which side of the political spectrum.

TJM said...

Mark,

As to wikipedia, this is how they describe Breitbart and Fox versus CNN and MSNBC:

"Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart, or Breitbart.com) is an American far-right[5] syndicated news, opinion and commentary[6][7]"

"The Fox News Channel, abbreviated FNC, commonly known as Fox News, and stylized in all caps, is an American multinational conservative cable news television channel based in New York City.[3][4][5]"

"The Cable News Network (CNN) is a multinational news-based pay television channel headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S..[2][3][4] It is owned by CNN Global, which is part of Warner Bros. Discovery.[5]"

"MSNBC is an American news-based pay television cable channel based in New York City. It is owned by the NBCUniversal News Group division of NBCUniversal (a subsidiary of Comcast)."

Notice there are no ideological labels attached to CNN and MSNBC even they are clearly leftwing. I would expect a law professor to be more discerning in his sources and be able to detect bias, no matter which side of the political spectrum.

Mark said...

To be sure, seen from TJM’s perspective, banning me would solve a “problem” too, only it is a different “problem,” no? TJM says he hasn’t called for me to be banned. But like so many nowadays across the political spectrum, TJM’s tactic is to try to “cancel” me or anyone else who disagrees with him by using labeling (e.g., “leftist”), demeaning ad hominem comments (e.g., “faculty lounge lizard”), etc. This sort of discourse belongs in the school playground, not in conversation among mature adults engaging in political self-rule.

TJM clearly did not read the entire Wikipedia entries he cites. For example, the entry on MSNBC has a substantial section on “Liberal Bias.” I would expect a lawyer to be a more careful reader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC#Liberal_bias

Moreover, TJM should be grateful to CNN. Had it not been for their incessant coverage of the Trump rallies during the campaigns leading up to the 2016 election, I doubt Trump would ever have become president. Of course, like so much else, that “inconvenient fact” goes down the memory hole in Trump world.

As for the causes of gun violence, please see my first comment in this thread. Apparently, TJM has a problem with such an approach calling for “objective and impartial studies” designed to generate “facts” and search for “truth,” as opposed to the expression of mere “opinions.” But I realize, of course, that “facts” and “truth” are not very fashionable in TJM’s world.

Clearly, it is a major challenge to determine the causes of gun violence. But the assertion that it is highest in cities run by Democrats appears to be one of those unfounded Republican talking points:

https://news.yahoo.com/republican-controlled-states-have-higher-murder-rates-than-democratic-ones-study-212137750.html

https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-red-state-murder-problem

“But there is a large piece of the homicide story that is missing and calls into question the veracity of the right-wing obsession over homicides in Democratic cities: murder rates are far higher in Trump-voting red states than Biden-voting blue states. And sometimes, murder rates are highest in cities with Republican mayors. . . .

“Among the 50 states, murder rates were often well above the national average in many Republican-controlled states and cities. Jacksonville with 176 homicides and a murder rate (19.776) more than three times that of New York City (5.94) has a Republican mayor. Tulsa (19.64) and Oklahoma City (11.16) have Republican mayors in a Republican state and have murder rates that dwarf that of Los Angeles (6.74). Lexington’s Republican mayor saw record homicides in 2020 and 2021, with a murder rate (10.61) nearly twice that of New York City. Bakersfield (11.91) and Fresno (14.09) each have Republican mayors and murder rates far higher than either San Francisco or Los Angeles.

Of course, some cities controlled by Democrats have alarming murder rates, like Chicago (28.49) and Houston (17.32). But we hear about these and other Democrat-run cities all the time. We aren’t getting the whole picture.”

And I never said collusion was a crime. But that still doesn’t make it right. Moreover, TJM is still trying to distract from the central point—just because Mueller could not uncover evidence proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean no crime was committed. And let’s not forget the obstruction of justice by Trump, of which Mueller found ample evidence.

In 1987 Allan Bloom famously wrote a “conservative” and controversial book called “The Closing of the American Mind.” Well, perhaps it is time now for a book title “The Disintegration of the American Mind.”


TJM said...

Mark,

The point I was making about Wikipedia and most of your sources is that they are biased to the left. Wikipedia in the very first sentence labels 2 sources as right wing and fails to label the other 2 as leftwing. You don’t find that problematic? Labeling or non-labeling like that is a deliberate attempt to color the reader’s perspective. What does “right wing” even mean? That you are married, have children and attend Church? And so-called Red State violence is confined to Democrat controlled cities which must be “systematically racist” except that the murders there are overwhelmingly Black on Black murders. BLM only only cares when a White person kills a person of color. BLM certainly does not care about Black genocide via abortion. Gun violence in Chicago, for example, is due to the culture in those communities. White liberals and the media will not discuss the corrupt culture there which was fostered by so-called Great Society programs. Until that discussion can be had, nothing will change for the Blacks living in those hellholes. Please note, unlike Harry Truman, Barack Obama has not returned to his old neighborhood but is living with the swells in Martha’s Vineyard.

A news story your sources will not likely be carrying today is one of a Black woman in Charleston, West Virginia, who shot and killed a Black man who fired into a crowd at a graduation party. The local police credited her with saving lives and possibly stopping a mass murder situation like unfolded in Uvalde where the police did not do their job.

And the Clintons colluded with Russia!