Government's involvement in anti-drug abuse in entertainment - RETRACTION

kenneth Collins kpaulc at earthlink.net
Sat Jan 15 00:51:20 EST 2000


i RETRACT my prior post, quoted below.

there are too many 'hang-ups'.

first, how does Government regulate when it's directing the course of
entertainment via the issuance of 'credits' having monetary 'value'?

next, if this or that garners 'credits' having monetary 'value', what
does just the opposite stuff garner?

this's a sticky-wicket because there's consistent-inconsistency built
right in, and such would tend to nullify the whole mix, making matters
worse.

part of it, for me, is that i like the experience of witnessing
excellent work being done in entertainment. think about it. would you
want to read novels if you knew the Government was in-there with its
'subliminal' stuff?

i think i'd pass. it's a matter of the Trust i invest in an Author's
working to get her or his Art =right=. such doesn't happen via
'committee'.

lastly, where does all this stop once it's allowed to start?

so, i RETRACT what i posted, quoted below. it's been obvious to me that
there was an effort going on in this way. saw a report that folks at
Harvard were working to 'insert' such stuff into scripts. that didn't
bother me all that much.

but to have Government in-there is Unacceptable, mostly because it
'entangles' Government in a way that diminishes Government's capacity
for Regulating and Governing... stuff that's been purchased, over and
over again, in Blood.

i Apologize for my =short-sightedness=.

i want so much for folks to work together on behalf of the General Good,
instead of 'seeking-advantage' in surrepticious ways that routinely miss
the mark, leaving innocents being taken-advantage-of.

Government should Lead, and then Trust folks to do the right thing, as a
result of Government's Leadership being attractively-Enlightening.

K. P. Collins

[P. S. Happy 71st Birthday to Martin Luther King. Say "Hi" to God for
me. ken]

kenneth Collins wrote:
> 
> i approve of the Government's involvement in anti-drug abuse in
> entertainment =iff= such involvement is explicitly declared in a way
> that's easily accessible to viewers, listeners, etc.
> 
> you know, if it's done in an openly-Forthright way, it's just an
> indication that folks are, in fact, coming together to work to enhance
> the general good, no?
> 
> yes.
> 
> in the absence of such coming-together, all entertainment 'educates'
> anyway, because it drives neural activation and learning occurs in an
> activity-dependent way, regardless (of course, as a function of
> 'experiential total'; AoK, Ap7 & 8).
> 
> it's very-important, though, to keep things Open, and Forthright, so
> that folks don't reach a 'conclusion' that forces are coming-together in
> a 'conspiracy' to surrepticiously manipulate their existences.
> 
> be Care-filled, Open, Honest, Forthright.
> 
> as i've discussed in the past, doing this sort of thing is also good
> Business practice.
> 
> and it would be excellent if folks in Journalism were to communicate to
> folks how it is that folks can come-together to work together on behalf
> of the General Good.
> 
> Journalists have Obligation, though, to seek, and expose Hipocricy with
> respect to this or that group saying one thing and doing another.
> 
> 'lip service' that denies harm done is the worse-possible thing, and
> Journalists should heighten their Vigilance with respect to such.
> 
> K. P. Collins




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list