
On to another topic near and dear to me: The effects of violence in our mass media on the general population's proclivity toward violent acts. Here's the thing that occurred to me a few moments ago: Ask the studios why they keep producing uber-violent, disgusting scenes of grotesque murder in movies, tv, and video games. They'll unabashedly admit that they do it because people like to buy and watch the stuff. Bully for people, and bully for the studios. So, following that logic, how about prostitution, then? It's been around for oh, about -- forever. Why? Because, quite simply, men like sex, and women like shiny things. On one hand, it's fine selling entertainment that has been proven (though heavily debated) to have a causal relationship with increasing a person's tendency to act violently. On the other hand, we have a business exchange where a woman voluntarily engages in sexual acts in return for money. Yet, only one of these business practices is deemed wrong, dangerous, and illegal. Am I being too black and white, or am I just guilty of making a bit of sense? There's a not-so-famous quote that says, "Why is there no crime in Germany? Because it's illegal." Why is there a problem with all of the gratuitous violence in our television shows, movies, and video games? Because it encourages violent behavior, desensitizes people to violent acts, and glorifies plain old bad behavior. What's the worst that could happen if the studios agreed to try backing off the slaughter-fest for, say, 12 months? Other than a significant drop in profit until the writers figured out a way to replace easy, lazy scriptwriting with intelligent and thought-provoking works, I can't see a downside, can you? And if it failed to effect a reduction in violent crime, then they could just start firing up the cannons once again.
One final thought: I'm constantly noticing people - intelligent ones - using the phrase, "I could care less" to describe their disinterest in something: Think about it!!! If you COULD care less, that means you care at least a little bit, doesn't it? You really want to say, "I could NOT care less," which more accurately indicates one's lack of concern. Did I really need to clarify this? Sadly, yes. And let's not forget the popular "unchartered territory" reference. I actually heard John McCain use that one in the first presidential debate. Wrong-o. It's actually "uncharted" territory, as in territory that no one has documented yet (like, on a chart), therefore it's kind of an unknown. Unchartered territory, on the other hand, might refer to the Siberian front, or some other such place where you'd have difficulty finding a chartered group tour at your local travel agent. And please, can someone explain to me why the leader of the free world for the past eight years, with all of his expert advisors and coaches, cannot seem to pronounce the word "nuclear" to save his life? C'mon, W - say "New," then say "Clear," and then say 'em together real fast-like. Heh-heh-heh. How that man has the key to the big red button machine is just uncular (read: unclear) to me.