Conference back40::soapbox

    If it gets votes, they'll do it.

    
    I think he made a mistake.  Clinton had a great deal of support from
    the entertainment industry. Now Dole just went and told them how
    naughty they were.
    
    Doesn't seem logical to me.

    Not really.  Hollywood was never a stronghold for the pubs anyway.  
    
    -Jack

    Dole probably wouldn't approve of pubs either.

Hollywood needs a good slapping for getting into a rut, IMO.  No
matter how innovative or different the storyline, since they always
seem to use the same old formula and actors I increasingly feel a sense
of deja vu every time I watch a `new' fillum...

Chris.

 I'd like to see Hollywood show a bit more responsibility both in movies,
 TV and music.  If Dole's comments can bring about such a result, I'd be
 happy.  I won't hold my breath, however.



 Jim

    Dole is going to turn the U.S. into a banana rebublic if he wins.

    
    My feelings are if you don't like it, turn off the TV, don't buy the
    movie ticket or the music.  This is entertainment, in whatever form it
    is in, we all have choices as to what we want expose ourselves too.
    
    Once you start getting these politicians jumping on the "tone down"
    bandwagon, they could be lining up on the "banned" wagon next.
    
    

    Not to worry, politicians can only influence public opinion.  They
    cannot dictate law to calm TV down.  
    
    In this venue, what Dole did was perfectly fine.
    
    -Jack

    
>    My feelings are if you don't like it, turn off the TV, don't buy the
>    movie ticket or the music.  This is entertainment, in whatever form it
>    is in, we all have choices as to what we want expose ourselves too.
 

  Yeah, well, I rarely buy a movie ticket, don't buy the music and my TV
 is off most of the time. Unfortunately the rare times my TV is on, I get
 barraged with ads for the garbage I don't care to see.

 Yes, we have choices.  The choices for those who don't care to watch
 everybody hopping into bed with everybody else's spouse/SO, or watch
 nonstop violence, or have TV tell us what and how we should think about
 this or that, are quite limited.  And, frankly its about time somebody
 told Hollywood that.  Not that they care.  There's too much money in
 it.



   
 >   Once you start getting these politicians jumping on the "tone down"
 >   bandwagon, they could be lining up on the "banned" wagon next.
  

   baloney  
    

    <---  what he said.  The first part, anyway.

    
    There is too much money in politics also, and they'll tell you whatever
    you want to hear, not that they care what you think, to get themselves
    elected.
    
    Smoke screens, all of it. Instead of dealing with real problems and
    finding real solutions, it is easier to blame someone or something else
    for all the problems with  morality, violence, poverty,
    ignorance, hate and the numerous amount of problems that we currently
    have. 
    
    But, politics, is like Hollywood, nothing but a bunch of actors.
    
    

David Letterman or one of the other late-night show hosts said that politics
was Hollywood for ugly people.

Bob

So why isn't Letterman in politics?

    
    This was stupid of Dole.  I hope he's not going to come out and start
    playing politics with these minor issues.  Stay the course of where the
    repubs are going now, less government at the federal level.
    
    
    Mike  

It's obvious that Dole's trying to make political hay, and it's obvious that
TV and movies are bad and getting worse.  That's why I don't have a TV and
haven't seen a movie in a couple of years.  Lots of folks out there think sex
and violence on TV and in movies is bad for other people, just like everybody
thinks all Congressmen are crooks except the one they keep re-electing.

I hope Dole has enough sense not to make a big deal out of this, but at the
same time I don't fault him for his remarks. He's entitled to express his
opinion. He's not entitled to force it on others. Tipper Gore tried that,
if I'm not mistaken.

    Haven't heard much from Tipper for a couple of years, have we?
    They must've told her to clam up for the duration.
    
    As for Dole, even though I tend to agree with his overall
    assessment of Hollowwood, it's a political mistake because
    the last thing the Repubs need now is to look like a bunch
    of squeezed-tight moralists finding mostly irrelevant things
    to point a shaking finger at.
    
    There's enough problems in Washington right now to make some
    of the seediest and/or scariest movies one could ever imagine
    to see, but it's real life.  He should stick to that.
    
    Chris

    Doles upset cause his $15,000 porn flick didn't pan out.:) So he is
    bashing Hollywood for rejecting the script. :)
    
    

    re: Note 446.6 by CSLALL::HENDERSON
    
    I've seen a movie maker (forget her name/company) who was basically
    PLEADING with the public to watch this nice family movie they made.
    I guess it flopped at the box office.  Everyone was paying to see
    those "bad" movies.

    Dole made some good points.  All you have to do is hang
    around a few 10-13 year olds who watch BEVUS and BUTHEAD
    and the listen to them degrade each other and the influence
    is obvious.   They think it is cool - I can't wait until
    they become adults (if they do...)   Listen to any rap 
    lately?  This is really good for a young persons self esteem/image 
    too not to mention how this teaches them to treat their peers!
    
    Another noter mentioned that you don't have to watch it, etc...
    and for adults I agree with that although each parent should
    really attempt to understand the kind of garbage that is coming from 
    Hwood and talk to their kids..
    
    I personally have come to the realization that T.V. at home is a 
    waste of time and no longer own one.    It is AMAZING how much
    more productive I have become WITHOUT a  T.V. (Time Vanisher) 
    

Hey, Beavis & Butthead *are* bleedin cool, daddio (and that's coming
from a 26 year old!)

Chris.

    ya
    
    
    
    lets go burn something
    
    ha grunt, haha

    
>    I've seen a movie maker (forget her name/company) who was basically
>    PLEADING with the public to watch this nice family movie they made.
>    I guess it flopped at the box office.  Everyone was paying to see
>    those "bad" movies.



   Not too surprising, really.





 Jim

    

>    I personally have come to the realization that T.V. at home is a 
>    waste of time and no longer own one.    It is AMAZING how much
>    more productive I have become WITHOUT a  T.V. (Time Vanisher) 
 

  I'm getting to that point.  I've cut down considerably the amount of time
 I spend in front of it.  I'm afraid my kids, when they come over, will go
 into withdrawl.  If I could pick up baseball games on my radio, the TV would
 be gone in a minute.




 Jim   

    re: Note 446.23 by CSC32::C_BENNETT
    
    > Dole made some good points.  All you have to do is hang
    > around a few 10-13 year olds who watch BEVUS and BUTHEAD
    > and the listen to them degrade each other and the influence
    
    Ya, and WHERE ARE THE PARENTS?  If you let your children watch
    "Beavis and Butthead" or (IMO) "The Simpsons" or most other
    "sitcoms", don't be surprised when they start talking back to
    you.
    
    This goes for music too.  You can set a good example, and if they
    choose to listen to cRap or watch filthy movies and you allow it,
    you should discuss this with your kids (this ain't normal or proper
    son, so don't be getting any ideas... etc...).  Best thing to do
    is turn that trash off.
    
    MadMike

What time is B&B screened over there?  It's not on (or wasn't anyway)
'til 11:40pm over here, by which time any sprogs should be long in
bed!

Chris.

        > Dole made some good points.  All you have to do is hang
        > around a few 10-13 year olds who watch BEVUS and BUTHEAD
        > and the listen to them degrade each other and the influence
    
    Beavis and Butthead.  NNTTM.
    
    My point is, we were doing this when I was that age.  Our terrible
    influence was Welcome Back, Kotter.  Things haven't changed in the ~20
    years since then, and I'm sure you 'older folks' were up to the same
    shenanigans.
    
    So, don't blame TV.

    You should really be blaming the Trilateral Commission.

    .31     So, don't blame TV.
    
    Blame what on T.V.?

    it, you know, it.

    Sorry, I meant don't blame Beavis and Butthead for the constant
    putdowns and backtalk kids give each other, it's been happening for
    years.

    
    
    
    Very true, Dick.  I guess the worst that we had was Dennis the Menace.
    
    
    

    	"Welcome Back Kotter" isn't even a shadow of "Bevis and Butthead".

    The meaning of 'it'?
    
    Well you can't blame the mess society is in on
    T.V.  Just like you can't blame 'it' on parents 
    who don't have a clue about how to control there 
    kids.  You can't blame 'it' on a kid that has 
    been raised with no respect for themselve or 
    others.  You can't blame 'it' on one given thing but 
    one thing is sure - 'it' if 'it' is unchecked will 
    continue to drag what could be a very good thing down the
    toilet.

    
    If your kids are watching Beavis and Butthead, which is on at 11:30
    at night, then there is a problem.
    
    It is clearly not a show made for children, and I think MTV has handled
    the complaints about it by putting it on in a timeslot when most kids
    should be in bed.
    
    

    Funy how polititions will make noise about T.V., then send us all off
    to war.

    .31
    
    > I'm sure you 'older folks' were up to the same
    > shenanigans.
    
    You're wrong.  When I was that age, we watched shows like Date with the
    Angels, Our Miss Brooks, and Father Knows Best; there weren't any shows
    with uncontrolled kids mouthing off like Bart Simpson or wreaking havoc
    like Beavis and Butthead.

    re: .41
    
    Bingo, the most dangerous thing about TV right now is how politicians
    and their news media groupies use it to manipulate and shape public
    opinion.
    
    re: a few TV shows mentioned here
    
    See Nick at Nite for "Welcome Back, Kotter", especially this past
    week and tonight (where they did a marathon), and every Friday
    starting in July.  As for "Our Miss Brooks", good point, I don't
    think too many of us wanted to emulate Walter (if I'm remembering
    his name correctly), the prototype nerd.
    
    
    re: general TV issue
    
    If you monitor your kids' viewing, that's good.
    
    If you raise your kids so that junk like B&B doesn't appeal to them
    in the first place, that's even better.
    
    If everyone would take the time and effort to raise their kids
    this way, problem solved, no government commentary or intervention
    necessary.
    
    "Government, get outta my face."  Dole is in serious danger of
    forgetting how his party got into its current position a couple
    of years ago.  I don't want him or anyone else we put in D.C.
    wasting our time and money commenting on television and movies,
    I want them to fix the damned broken government.
    
    Chris

    
    
    Right on, Chris.  I don't want government "doing what's best for us" in
    thins and most other areas.  Turn the damn tube off or to something
    acceptable for the kids.
    
    Mike

Yep, you don't realize how much time you Waste (capital W) in front of the
tube until you turn it off. Nothing but a bunch of propaganda and tedious
sitcoms anyway. I don't need to be told how I should think, thanks.

My mother is a prime example of a TV addict. The mere suggestion that the TV
has an OFF switch is scoffed and laughed at in that household. Even when no
one is watching it. The big topic of conversation is "what's on TV?" or, even
sillier, how crappy today's TV programs are.
Yawn.

Whatever happened to hobbies? I haven't had time for TV since I got
interested in amateur radio...

    I'm going to stop all television viewing and cease any attendance at
    movie theatres and spend all my time in SOAPBOX. That should probably
    give me all the excitement and of course health benefits that I could
    ask for, doncha think. ;)
    
    ...Tom

    >See Nick at Nite for "Welcome Back, Kotter",
    
    Ahhh the memories..like
    
    Ba ba baaaa ba ba barino
    Ba ba baaaa ba ba barino
    Ba ba baaaa ba ba barino
    
    Vinny was my hero :)
    
    ...Tom

    This is just what we need, another father figure to take care of
    all of us.  The United Communist Party..errrr I mean, the United
    States Guvmint needs to stop playing daddy, and start running this
    country, and not into a communist state..As it seems they  are
    trying to do...
    
    If the kids watch this stuff, hey next generation will be "FUBAR'd";
    Oh well,   BLAME THE DAMNED PARENTS!
    
    A country of sheep beckoning the FLEECE!!
    
    
    sin-te-da

    .47
    
    46 years?  1992-1917 is 75 by my reckoning.

  For cryin' out loud, all Dole was asking is that the studios be more 
  responsible about what they are putting out.  As Howie Carr said today,
  if somebody walked into the offices of Time-Warner and started reciting
  some of the lyrics of some raps "artists" and some rock "artists", they'd
  be hauled off for sexual harassment,  and yet the studio heads defend
  their right to put the stuff out (as do I).  But along with rights come
  responsibility.  


  Jim

    you get what you want. if america wants violence and sex america gets
    violence and sex. when enough people want peace and tranquility you
    will get peace and tranquility. hollywood knows what people wants and
    gives it to them.
    

    Arnold doesn't count.  He is a spy from the Kennedy camp so he is a
    good guy.
    
    -Jack

    re: -1
    
    That'a a good one!  I liked that!
    
    Dan

    
      This was a mistake, imo, for Dole.  For Grahm, it wouldn't be.
    
      Dole's problem is really that he is too old.  Bashing Hollywood's
     trash makes him appear behind the times, out of touch.  And he isn't
     going to lure the right in the GOP primaries.
    
      Grahm, on the other hand, definitely needs the moralists.  Unwilling
     to take a right-to-life stance, he's simply got to play to them, or
     he's got no base.
    
      Makes me wonder if Dole is running scared.  Has he seen a bad poll ?
    
      bb

    
    I guess only liberals are allowed to attack corporate greed and
    the social irresponsibility of the executive crowd.
    
    Bad boy, Dole. Bad boy!
                                                      

    >social irresponsibility
    
    Can sombody define this for me??
    
    ...Tom

    Some of the best things my parents ever did for me:
    
    Made a big deal about getting me a library card when I
    was six, and made sure I got to the library every week to
    use it.
    
    Kicked me outside on nice days to play instead of sitting
    in the house watching tv.
    
    The tv wasn't on unless someone was watching it.
    
    I did watch a lot of tv as a kid, but I also read a lot
    of books, and to this day I'd rather read a book than
    watch tv, so somebody did something right.  I also watched
    a lot of educational tv with my Dad, who loved a good documentary.
    Today, so does his daughter :-) 
    
    My parents kept an eye on what I read, watched and listend
    to.  Did this work?  Until I was 13 or so I suppose.  Then I
    bought headphones :-). Kids go through that stage.  If I didn't
    smoke or try drugs or get drunk it was probably because: 1.)
    they told me not to or 2.) they never did it.  It's a little
    tough to tell your kid not to drink and then proceed to 
    reminesce with your friends about all those great drinking
    parties in college.  Your kids think you have eyes in the
    back of your head?  Your kid's got ears all over his/her skull.
    Not to mention a hipocracy meter the size of Texas.  
    
    There's a lot more choices for kids to watch today.  But if
    you use the tv as a babysitter or stick in a video to
    "shut them up" for a couple of hours, don't blame society
    if you wind up with tv junkies.  Society just makes the candy.
    You're the one whose supposed to decide how much your kids 
    eat.    
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    
    But...but...TV gives *so* much and asks so *little* in return!
    

    Umm, Dole wasn't the only one castigating the Hollywood crowd. 
    Remember Reno et al 'suggesting' that Hollywood police itself or the
    feds might have to step in.

    But I see Dole isn't going to give back the campaign contribution given
    by Warner.  Isn't that a bit two-faced?

<    But I see Dole isn't going to give back the campaign contribution given
<    by Warner.  Isn't that a bit two-faced?



   Not at all. All it shows is that Time-Warner wasted its money...

    Re: 57
    
    There is something very wrong here.  I think this is the second time
    that I find myself agreeing with the author.  Although I do beleive
    that in addition to monitoring what your children see and hear, you do
    have an obligation to speak out against those which you find serious
    fault with.
    

    
    
    well said, mary-michael...
    
    
    

   <<< Note 446.57 by SMURF::MSCANLON "alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether" >>>

>    The tv wasn't on unless someone was watching it.
    
    	How do you know if you weren't watching?  :^)
    
>    It's a little
>    tough to tell your kid not to drink and then proceed to 
>    reminesce with your friends about all those great drinking
>    parties in college.  Your kids think you have eyes in the
>    back of your head?  Your kid's got ears all over his/her skull.
>    Not to mention a hipocracy meter the size of Texas.  
    
    	This was the one thing I had a little problem with.  Just because
    	a parent did abc doesn't mean that he can't tell his kid not to
    	do that same abc.  I agree that a parent shouldn't be reminiscing
    	with fondness about such things if he sees it as wrong today.
    	Kids *will* pick up on that.  But we are supposed to learn from 
    	our mistakes, and there is nothing wrong or hypocritical with
    	telling your kids to avoid the very things that you did as a
    	kid.  In fact, I believe that there is everything wrong with
    	NOT trying to steer kids away from the bad things we did at their
    	age, and it is equally wrong to EXPECT that our kids will do
    	those very same bad things.

    Art follows life.

    We need a major spirits overhaul. JD increased by 20%alc vol.

    
    re .59  Dole and Reno
    
    Well, political scapegoating does make for strange bedfellows.
    
    Now there's a mental image I could have done without...
          

    
    IMHO this was simply an extremely clumsy attempt, by Dole, to show
    another dimension of his "deep and caring" side. 
    
    I like my violence and sex in the cinema and, as an american, by golly
    I'm gonna have it!
    
    Everyone in here is right on. H'wood is simply doing what comes
    naturally, giving the public what it wants and making $$$$'s hand
    over fist. The american dream in excess, but they have every right
    to do so. Just like Dole (and every other politico) has every right
    toss his shallow/empty opinion in on the subject.
    
    It's not the movies or TV, it's responsible parenting stupid. The 
    3 Stooges was nothing but 10-15 min. of abuse and mayhem. Most of
    us (male boomers anyway) have watched (prolly) thousands of hours.
    I ran out looking for one of my friends to try out the latest Moe
    eye poke or the (Larry) hair removal technique... Gimme a break here.
    
    Giving the rooster credit for the sunrise does nothing but display
    one's ignorance. Congrats Dole...
    
    Chip 

     I think that Dole took a big risk in standing up and saying that
    Hollywood's cultural contributions are dubious and a mixed blessing.
    Yeah, there are plenty of people who agree with him, but there are
    probably many more who will use his remarks to castigate him.
    
     I like sex and violence as much as the next guy, but I don't think
    that the studies that link the violence and lawlessness in our streets
    to the violent images protrayed positively on the silver screen and on
    TV can be casually dismissed. Watching a violent movie isn't going to
    take a passive, meek kid and make a homicidal maniac out of him, but a
    culture that inundates its youth with violent images with little if any
    moral perspective cannot be surprised when the shock value of violence
    is lost and violence becomes just another fact of life.
    
     Violence is culturally an acceptable way to solve problems; if someone
    pisses you off, just blow them away � la Dirty Harry. Kapow. End of
    problem.
    
     It can be argued that Hollywood is only giving us what we want, and to
    some extent that is true. However, Hollywood has become dependent on
    formulaic cinema, in which there is x amount of violence, y amount of
    exposed breasts and semi-on screen humping and heavy breathing, and
    very little story line. Not to say that anyone's gone broke
    underestimating the taste of the american public- take Dumb and
    Dumber's box office success. How anyone could not only sit through such
    mind numbing idiocy but actually enjoy it is utterly beyond my
    comprehension.
    
     I personally think that Hollywood sahould take it upon itself to clean
    up its own act, to raise the quality of its endeavors and use celluloid
    more as an artistic medium than a cash funnel. I'm not at all against
    violent and/or sexual images being on the screen, but I'd prefer to see
    them protrayed more realistically and used with artistic merit in mind,
    not simply to provide the magic formula which guarantees millions.
    
     Our culture in general has to make an effort to demonstrate that
    violence is socially unacceptable. This requires courage and
    perseverence. I would prefer that Hollywood assume their role in such a
    society- so when they protrayed violence as part of a story, it had
    shock value, it had impact, because it was so unusual. Right now
    everybody gets blown away and they're back again in the next picture.
    No shock value is left.
    

    
    RE:, 61     No, but his wife is going to sell all her Disney stock
    	        because Disney owns Miramax, the distributor of Pulp
    	        Fiction and a movie called "Priest" about the sexual
    	        misconduct of a Catholic Priest.
    
    		So she is going to sell her $15,000 worth of stock
    		to stand by he hubby's statements.
    
    Mary
    

<     Violence is culturally an acceptable way to solve problems; if someone
<    pisses you off, just blow them away � la Dirty Harry. Kapow. End of
<    problem.

I think the problem here is not so much the violence and sex themselves as it
is the context in which it occurs. I think the Dirty Harry - Rambo type movies
have done more to change attitudes than most other forms of entertainment. The
problem is not the raw violence, but rather that it's the "good" guy that's out
of control. The "good" guy is doing all the "bad" things. It has confused right
and wrong. Good guys should be portrayed doing good things and the bad guys
doing the bad things. 

<    violent and/or sexual images being on the screen, but I'd prefer to see
<    them protrayed more realistically and used with artistic merit in mind,

I get enough reality in the newpapers and the TV newshows thank you. I don't
need more reality in my entertainment. 

<     Our culture in general has to make an effort to demonstrate that
<    violence is socially unacceptable. This requires courage and

Give me a morality play where the hero always wins (without cheating) and the
villian always loses. It's certainly not reality, but you can have all the sex
and violence you want to show. The deviant behavior should not be portrayed as
acceptable behavior. It's no wonder so many kids have no sense of right and
wrong. Hollywood, among other mediums, has mixed it all up, and parents aren't
doing enough to point out the difference.
    
Al
    

    .69
    
    I agree Mark.  It all depends on the values and morals the individual
    has acquired in life, the amount of self worth their parents have
    developed in them, their ethical base and grasp on reality.  If these 
    things are missing, then the violence and hate will just feed their 
    needs and show them how power can be acquired from violence.  
    
    However, to single out Hollywood is just bandstanding for the
    conservative vote.  Such blame can be placed on parents who
    use violence on their children in the name of discipline,  groups of 
    people or individuals, who spread hate and discrimination--the KKK, 
    para-military organizations, politicians--their words create an 
    atmosphere of legitimacy, and gives the unstable individuals a target 
    for their hate. 
    
    However, the media find it hard to produce adult entertainment (and I
    don't mean porn) without voilence in actions and words.  The quality of
    programs on commercial entertainment leaves a lot to be desired. 
    Heaven knows, I don't want to go back to Leave it to Beaver, or Pat
    Boon specials, but the quality of the present choice in films and TV 
    have me turning to PBS or a video more often than not.

                    <<< Note 446.68 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    Just like Dole (and every other politico) has every right
>    toss his shallow/empty opinion in on the subject.
    
    	Why is his (their) opinion shallow and empty?  Is a person no
    	longer entitled to an opinion?
    
    	I noticed that you prefaced your entry with IMHO.  Perhaps you
    	don't realize that the O in IMHO means opinion...  Do you 
    	consider your opinion to be shallow/empty too?

    No Joe... To simply broad brush the accusation shows little
    to no intellectual investment.
    
    We all know the root of today's societal diseases is far more reaching
    than the TV or movies.
    
    Like I said, giving credit to the rooster...
     
    Chip

                      <<< Note 446.72 by TOOK::GASKELL >>>

>    However, to single out Hollywood is just bandstanding for the
>    conservative vote.  
    
    	Do you really thing that H'wood is being singled out here?
    	I don't.  One guy (or even one group) is highlighting this
    	today, but that doesn't mean that he thinks it is the ONLY
    	factor.  Ignoring this one factor because there are others
    	is worse than only focusing on one's pet peeve.
    
    	You listed other possible factors.  I'll bet there are more too.
    	If other individuals and groups take up the banner to correct
    	them (and that is already the case for many of them) then they
    	will all be (and are being) addressed.  We all can't address 
    	all the problems at the same time.  Conversely, if we all say
    	that it is wrong to address individual problems because there
    	are other problems too, then nothing gets addressed.

    Let's all give a great round of applause for Tipper Gore and the
    Clinton Administration for leading the charge!!!!!
    
    -Jack

    Re: .71
    
    I think you are partly right. If you examine the violent movies i.e,
    Death Wish, True Lies, Die Hard, Rambo, etc. the good guys are
    committing violence in spades. I think that their popularity is more
    because this is the only place where the bad guys ultimately get what
    they deserve. In the movies it's the terrorists, the rapists, the
    murderers, the psycho killers that ultimately get what they really
    deserve from the likes of Dirty Harry, Arnie, Bronson and Willis etc.
    
    In real life, it's the good guys who are getting killed, raped, and
    blown away while our courts and big brother continue to find more ways
    to turn the bad guys loose and back out into their killing ground. 
    
    Yes, the movies are not real, but they do give the law abiding citizens
    a few hours of seeing bad guys get theirs. For now at least, that's the
    only place they'll ever see it. Think how depressing it would be if the
    movies showed things as they really were. Dirty Harry would never shoot
    anyone, he would arrest the perp a jillion times and watch him walk out
    the door while he filled out his 400th form and the law-abiding
    citizens would continue to be walking targets for the bad guys. Finally
    Dirty Harry would get killed and that's how the movie would end, with
    the bad guy walking off into the sunset laughing and searching for the
    next victim. How many of those kind of movies, depicting life as it
    really is today would you watch when you don't have to buy a ticket to
    see the same thing out on our streets.  
    
    Rather than blame the movies, think about why we are really
    desensitized to violence....just watch TV news, read the papers etc.
    they are filled with real life stories of violence in our streets every
    day, the reality of it is much worse than any movie. When Arnie kills
    this villian or that one we get to see that villian appear in the next
    flick. I think most individuals watching these films know it's only a
    movie. When they see blood and bodies on TV and in the papers they
    know it's for real. I would venture to say I have seen and heard of a
    higher real body count on TV News and in the papers than I will ever see in
    a movie theatre. How do most of us react when we hear about the
    umpteenth gang rape/murder in Central Park....terrible , shocking but
    it's happened before and we know it will again. Then you find that the
    perps where teenagers from ages 11 to 16 and watch as they all get a
    pat on the wrist and get paroled to go prowl the streets again. How can
    citizens not be de-sensitized when our system lets this go on and on
    and on. Our youth are bombarded with the real world reality that people
    who commit crimes rarely if ever get what they really deserve. That
    lesson is learned every single day. That IMHO is the real problem.
    
    I also agree with several noters who said that the politicians should fix
    their own house and leave the moral judgements to the public. I can
    also see why the politicians are worried about this since these films
    get people stirred up and they might have to try to do something about it.
    
    JB
                                                                               

    re: the last few...
    
    > problem is not the raw violence, but rather that it's the "good" guy 
    > that's out of control. The "good" guy is doing all the "bad" things. 
    
    To quote a friend of mine "What planet are you from !"... It seems to
    me that y'all are blaming the current violent tendencies of criminals
    on the "violence of the good guys" and spanking children!  This is the
    most ludicrous thing I've heard recently. 
    
    There is one thing that violent criminal types understand, that is
    violence.  The Hells Angles in my home town live in a VERY NASTY part
    of town, but their neighborhood is VERY NEAT and tidy, because the
    other scum don't litter on the Hells Angles property.  It would become
    very unpleasant for them if they did.
    
    The concept of spanking children as being the root of violent criminal
    behavior is even more hollow.  If this were true we should be having
    fewer violent criminals than ever in our past, and this is obviously
    not the case.
    
    Dan
    

    Re: .78
    
    >The Hells Angles in my home town
    
    They ride bent over?

    
   >>The Hells Angles in my home town
    
 >They ride bent over?

  this is acute comment, albeit a little obtuse.

    >The concept of spanking children as being the root of
    >violent criminal behavior is even more hollow. 
    
     Watch that canard! Nobody said anything about violent movies (or
    spanking for that matter) being _the root_ of violent criminal
    behavior. What has been said is that the violent content of movies, etc
    _contributes to a culture where violence is considered to be almost
    inconsequential._ 

    i would say contributes in some "unknown" quantity. certainly it can be
    tied to some isolated crimes.
    
    Chip

    
    Maybe OJ will use that as an excuse when he is convicted, pleading
    that "Hollywood made me to it".
    
    Not.
    

    -1 yeah... those Naked Gun movies must've been hell. :-)
    
       Chip

    I think blaming Hollywood, or the media in general, for the
    problems of society is a little simplistic, albeit comforting
    and convenient.  Was there a dramatic increase in voilence when
    they churned out all the war movies during WWII?  And what is
    the difference between a war movie and a violent movie?  A cause?
    A noble reason to kill people?  Is this really sufficient and is
    it a decent argument to pass along to your kids?  Until we are
    ready to agree that you have to face up to the personal consequences
    of taking a life regardless of the situation and regardless of
    the excuses you can use to remove the guilt, can we as a society 
    really deal with violence?  
    
    It seems a lot of parents today want to be their kid's best 
    friend.  Whether because of divorce or diverse parenting 
    methods, people seem to be trying to stay on their kids
    good side.  This can be a real problem since I think most of
    us can agree that children are really too young to run the
    world.  They are, for the most part too young to have "choices"
    and "consequences".  They are, however, quite old enough to
    do what they are told.  As my mother often told me, "You have
    the rest of your life to do what you want after you move out."
    Children don't need parental "buddies".  They need parents.
    They need to be told what to do, and when to do it.  They
    need structure, discipline and a clear sense of right and
    wrong.  They need heros and good examples.  And they don't 
    need these things because you had them growing up.  They need
    them because they serve a purpose.  They teach restraint,
    compassion and ethics.  And there's why you have the violence -
    nobody's learning these thing anymore. And the Christians don't
    have a corner on the market, either. These are not faith 
    dependent values.  Faith may make them stronger, faith may
    add other dimensions to them, but anyone can be compassionate,
    anyone can show restraint and everyone *must* have ethics to 
    survive in the world.
    
    It's not the tv, it's that you won't shut it off, throw it
    out or punish your children if they defy you.  It's not the
    video games, it's that you let them play them 10 hours a
    day.  Too much of anything isn't good.  You can have fun with 
    your kids and still be an authority figure.  A kid needs
    an authority figure, not a big buddy.  They need to be
    told what to do so that when they have kids they'll remember
    how smart you were and ask your advice :-).  I was amazed
    at how smart my parents got between the time I was fifteen
    and the time I was twenty-five.... :-)
    
    Mary-Michael

    >    I think blaming Hollywood, or the media in general, for the
    >    problems of society is a little simplistic, albeit comforting
    >    and convenient.
    
     So are you prepared to let Hollywood off the hook completely, and say
    that nothing they do has any impact? That all the violence that
    bombards our kids is irrelevant and without consequence?
    
     I don't think that anyone (correct me if I'm wrong) is saying that
    Hollywood is solely responsible for the state we're in. What I'm
    hearing, and more specifically what _I_ have been saying is that
    Hollywood's choices have an impact, that there is a social cost being
    paid for the violence saturation. That's it. I'm hardly letting the
    parents off the hook for their complicity- that's simply another
    discussion. Here we are (purportedly) talking about Hollywood's role.
    You wanna take aim at parents? I'll be there with you; let's just make
    it a note of its own, or change the title of this to reflect the larger
    scope of discussion.
    
     I find that opening sentences like that of your note polarize the
    debate rather than add to the discussion. It seems to me to be a
    classic example of the straw man argument; you take an argument that
    no one has made and beat it to the ground. FWIW I agree with much of
    the things you said, but that opening was quite offputting.

<    > problem is not the raw violence, but rather that it's the "good" guy 
<    > that's out of control. The "good" guy is doing all the "bad" things. 
    
<    on the "violence of the good guys" and spanking children!  This is the
<    most ludicrous thing I've heard recently. 

    Whereas you pulled the quote from my note, I'll respond.

    How did we make the jump from Dirty Harry breaking all the rules to get his
man to spanking children is a bad thing? I am a firm believer in corporal
punishment (ask my daughter, now 19 and nearly as conservative as I am) but it
should be used sparingly, otherwise it loses its impact (no pun intended.) 
    
<    There is one thing that violent criminal types understand, that is 
<    violence.  The Hells Angles in my home town live in a VERY NASTY part

    I'm not suggesting anything different from that. I'm only saying that the
context of the violence and the sex, where it's the hero's breaking the rules
(for all the good reasons) sends a message that if the cause is right, then 
anything goes which is wrong.
    
<    The concept of spanking children as being the root of violent criminal
<    behavior is even more hollow.  If this were true we should be having

    My belief is 180 deg from this. Corporal punishment, applied at the right
time in limited quantities would help these poor lost kids remember the 
consequences of wrong behavior. When reasoning with the child doesn't work, a
good parent must resort to something the child will understand. Most kids
understand pain. Unfortunately inappropriate application, either in the timing
or the severity can be worse than doing nothing. 

   Again, how did we make the jump from movies to tanning a kid's hide?
Al

    re: .86
    
    I think the validity of the argument turns on whether you
    believe Hollywood mirrors society or society mirrors Hollywood.
    I personally believe Hollywood mirrors society, therefore, 
    blaming Hollywood is giving vent to the more simplistic 
    and palatable of the available choices.  It is far eatougher to
    say, "Is there something fundamentally wrong with society (and 
    therefore us)?" than it is to say, "The "bad media" is making us
    violent people (and we are victims and therefore blameless)."  
    
    I'm sorry if you find that "offputting", but that's the
    way I see it.
    
    FWIW, I also have a Bachelor's in Communications :-) :-)
    
    Mary-Michael

   <<< Note 446.88 by SMURF::MSCANLON "alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether" >>>

>    believe Hollywood mirrors society or society mirrors Hollywood.
    
    	Either way, society needs a change.

    What's the big deal about Dole?  Clinton criticized Hollywood a few
    weeks ago and nobody said "Boo!" about it.  The only shocker was that
    he waited until they made their campaign pledges first.

    -1 maybe people are getting tired of kicking the old dog and looking
       for a new one?
    
       Chip

    
      This is a very nervous Hollywood season - huge releases, very
     expensive to produce, are coming out in great quantities.  But
     right now, the surprise leading hit is "Caspar the Friendly Ghost".
    
      What outright gamblers movie producers have to be !  You shell out
     $157M on the new Costner vehicle, without any return, cross your
     fingers and pray.  And the public is so fickle.  Tough business.
    
      bb

    The original producer of Casper is suing (or at least whining) to pull
    it from the theaters as it has too much violence and sexual innuendo
    and mars the original.  As heard on radio nooz recently.
    
    Brian

    
    Really??? My sister took her kids and she said it was a very
    delightful and adorable movie.
    
    Mary
    

    Really.

    re: .87
    
    The spanking children was from a follow on note from I believe a
    different person.  I did not intentionally imply that you were opposed
    to spanking children.  I had been responding to several notes, yours
    however contained the comment I wanted to approach directly.  The
    reason for that was that your argument had some possible points where
    the other had not a leg to stand on.
    
    Dan

    re: .93, "Casper"
    
    That's amazing... I just saw it last night.  Where was the violence?
    And I saw nothing indicating sexual innuendo at all.  Very strange.
    If anything, the movie needs a warning like the following:
    
    	Warning:  Although this movie contains some humor
    		  and light moments, it ultimately relies
    		  on extreme tear-jerking, maudlin, and
    		  button-pushing manipulative techniques,
    		  not to mention unbelievable plot devices,
    		  in place of an actual story.
    
    The biggest relief, though, must have come from D.C. dwellers,
    upon realizing that Casper's last name turned out to be something
    other than Weinberger.  Whew...
    
    I'd say to Dole, there are much bigger fish to fry.  Emphasizing
    this makes him appear to be either avoiding or not realizing the
    real issues.  In either case, I'm concerned.
    
    As for Clinton, it was okay when he and Field Marshal Reno were
    criticizing the same things about Hollowood that Dole is hitting
    on now, but when Dole does it, he's "playing politics".  As usual
    Clinton's slick-sliding away.
    
    Chris

    I heard the same bit on the radio..one scene they referred to as 
    having sexual inuendo was Casper saying"hey theres a girl in my bed,
    cool" or some such like that  I say ban it  :-)
    
       Dean

    re: .98
    
    Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that.  It went right over the kids'
    heads, of course (I hope)... I figured it was just something
    thrown in there to keep us adults occupied (like having Eric
    Idle, a nice casting move).  But now I also remember that Casper
    "slept" with the girl.  Hmmmmm!  :-)
    
    What *was* objectionable, now that I think about it for a minute,
    was some of the language, some of which wasn't suitable for the
    younger set.  Having a 12/13-year-old girl telling people (okay,
    ghosts) to "piss off" was unseemly.  There were some other ones
    there, too, to the point where I reminded the kids afterwards
    that it was not okay to talk like that.
    
    Hey, gotta get that "PG" rating somehow, to avoid the dreaded
    "G", which spells box-office doom for anyone but Disney.
    
    Chris

    Hollyweird SNARF!

    >I think the validity of the argument turns on whether you
    >believe Hollywood mirrors society or society mirrors Hollywood.
    
     Ah! A false dichotomy- nearly as effective as a straw man argument for
    providing an outlet for "righteous" argumentation.
    
     Why do you seek to make it an either/or situation? Because it provides
    the most positive light in which to view your argument? Sounds like the
    tail is wagging the dog.
    
     I'd say there are elements of both at work here. Do you disagree?
    
     And this talk of blaming Hollow-wood for our societal problems
    (intentionally?) misses the point. Or is Hollywood afforded a status of
    being above reproach, and immune to criticism; simply not a candidate
    for being held responsible for their role in the decline of our
    society?
    
    >The "bad media" is making us
    >    violent people (and we are victims and therefore blameless)."
     
    It is arguments such as this that make me wonder whether you are
    actually reading what has been written or if you have simply decided to
    have some fun by playing the polarization game. "I'll take any argument
    they make, amplify it to the point of complete distortion and argue
    against that absurd reduction." Is that your game? Or is it too
    difficult to analyze the situation as it is, and contemplate what
    effect "art" has on life? Obviously, the polarization game is far less
    mentally taxing, but are you avoiding having to think or are you just
    playing games for the sake of playing games?

  .101  hoo...doggies.  what the hell is he on about?

    See, I told you it was full of trashy language and sexual innuendo. 
    Ban Casper the Friendly Pornographer!

    re: .101
    
    Good heavens!  It would appear that instead of hitting a 
    single nerve, I've wacked a whole chorus! I'm honestly
    just trying to state my opinion, imperfect as that may be.
    I think you're reading a bit more into this than I 
    intended.  If it makes you happy, have at it.  You're
    replies are at least amusing to read.... :-)
    
    I think you can gather from what I have written here and
    in other notes, that I am not in favor of holding the arts
    up to random moral scrutiny, since a.) it is diffcult to agree
    on "moral" and "immoral" standards, and b.) once put in place,
    controls are itseldom used with the proper restraint and judgeme
    and tend to propagate rapidly.
    
    I also believe a great deal in self-determination. You may 
    spend 12 hours a day staring at a tv screen, but if you do 
    not WANT to rob a convenience store or mug a passerby, you
    will not do it.  Using the media as a scapegoat for our
    societal woes is not the answer.  It is merely a symptom,
    not the problem.  It would be like saying, "Well, if we don't
    let people talk about X, X will no longer be a problem."
    It just won't work.  Art imitates life.  Telling a capitalist
    "Shame on you for making movies that thousands of people fill
    movie houses to see, making you millions of dollars in profit."
    is extremely silly.  Far better to ask yourself, "why are 
    people violent?"  Some possible reasons:
    
    * people are poor;
    * people have no jobs;
    * people have no education;
    * people have no hope;
    * there are too many people (overcrowding in cities);
    * people do not practice restraint;
    * people do not want to wait for the things they feel will
      improve their lives;
    * people are selfish;
    
    A lot of these things sprouted up during the eighties (ie,
    the "Reagan Years" -- oooo watch me get hit for this :-),
    I would be far more willing to blame the "me, me" Baby
    Boomer mentality for some of society's problems, than
    a medium which only allows a program to survive as long as
    people are willing to support it.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    One of the big wigs at MTV recently said that he won't let his kids
    watch it.  Mel Gibson's kids haven't seen most of his movies.
    
    Hollywood would do well to notice the list of all-time box office
    successes and make more movies like them.  
    
    Mike

    re: Time-Warner
    
    You know what a hypocrite is don't you ?
    
    
    
    It's a man who just isn't himself on Sunday !
    
    Dan

	typical limbaugh nonsense.

	wonder if CEOs of tobacco companies smoke.

    Hardly insightlful. 
    
    Does the CEO of Time-Warner not have a responsibility to the
    shareholders to make money?  Does the CEO have such wide musical and
    theatrical tastes as to be able to enjoy ALL of the companies
    offerings?  Is there time for the CEO to even accomplish this?  
    
    Rush is a blowhard which he is so adept at proving time and again, IMO
    etc......  
    
    BTW if I were CEO of McDonald's I wouldn't eat the food, certainly not
    very often.    
    
    Brian

    
    One of my relatives is a Coors distributor and he once told me the
    folks from Coors don't drink.
    
    

    What would you think about a Ford dealership if the owner drove a
    Cadillac ?
    
    Just wondering?
    
    Dan

    The local Ford dealership owner also owns a Ferrari, Volkswagen,
    Toyota, and Pontiac dealership.  He drives whatever he pleases
    as it should be.   
    
    Brian

    If a Ford dealer drove a Caddy I'd say he/she is a very smart person!

	re. 112

	and that same Mr. Rick Starr has $51.58 that I recently parted with
	at his empire...

	

    Re: .105
    
    >Would the CEO of McDonald's eat their own food? Yes
    
    Okay, so he would, but did he?
    
    The menu at McDonald's is far more limited than the "menu" of musical
    offerings from Time-Warner.  If the CEO were obliged to consume
    everything his conglomerate produced, he'd have no time for business.

    <---- Yep, that's the one.  "We've been screwing er, serving our 
    customers for over 25 years!"  

    .8
    
    I haven't got past this note... so forgive me if this has already been
    said.
    
    What we have done with the movie industry is desensitized the american
    public and probably most of the world to violence and sex.
    
    The attitude was this is *real* life when these movies first dabbled in
    their intensity, but how many of you have actually watched in person
    a individual burn to death and then resurrect?  Or how about a person
    falling on a iron fence post and have it pierce through the middle of
    their bodies?  or a bullet hold in the head? 
    
    The bottom line is that when we become desensitized to violence,
    society will become more violent [set/mode sarcasm=on] for its just 
    part of *real* life.
    
    What came first?  Violence portrayed on film?  Or the violence amongst
    our youth today?
    
    Nancy
    

    .29
    
    Where are the parents?  Much of the time two parent-working family with
    children/teens at home.  Or Mom and Dad are too busy with their own
    social lives, they don't supervise kids.
    
    I believe it was a parent in Colorado that was fined for their
    adolescent child smoking.  The law basically states that if your child
    is caught out of control or partaking in certain behaviors the parent
    pays a hefty fine or takes the punishment.  
    
    While part of me agrees that parents should be taking responsibility,
    another part of me finds this to be absolutely hypocritical.  They
    decide that parents should discipline their children but then parents
    hands are tied for corporal punishment for that would be abuse.  So
    these parents are caught in the middle between the government on both
    sides!!!
    
    Nancy

    Quite frankly its not just the kids who shouldn't be watching Beavis
    and Butthead.  We all have a wonderful tool that has been given us, its
    called the mind.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Adults are no different
    than children.
    
    A good example is the Little League in my neighborhood.  The adults
    quite frankly have been as appalling as their children in the league. 
    When a board meeting spends its entire time dealing with manager/coach
    issues versus children issues its time to call it quits!
    
    I see these adult parents bad-mouthing/violent acts (even the
    women)/cursing/stoned/high and then these same parents are shocked when
    Johnny does the same.
    
    Like parents/like progeny.
    
    Nancy

    Nancy, I don't agree the movies (or even the news) plays a large
    role in desensitization. The cartoons (Looney Tunes) were full of
    violence and sexual inneundo. Absolutely loaded (now that I see it).
    
    It values taught. It's those values that support the notion that this
    isn't something to be imitated but is pure entertainment and that's
    the perspective that's missing.
    
    Now back to that Casper thing... Was the girl in his bed a ghost too?
    If she was human we'd have a serious mixed relationship issue here :-).
    
    Chip

    
    Yup, look at the Road Runner, Tom and Jerry, the Three Stooges.  All of
    these have violence in them. 
    
    Mary
    

    Popeye, Bugs Bunny, Woody Woodpecker and on and on and on.  

    
    Wonder if Dole ever watched cartoons when he was a kid??
    
    

    >> Now back to that Casper thing... Was the girl in his bed a ghost too?
    >> If she was human we'd have a serious mixed relationship issue here :-).
    
    Nope, she was a live 13-or-so-year-old, no doubt designed to appeal
    to the target audience of 13-or-so-year-old boys. :-)  Fortunately,
    Casper is (er, was) about the same age.  But they do have logistical
    problems, to be sure.
    
    Chris

    true Chris. i don't ever remember Casper being anatomically correct
    
    :-)
    
    Chip

    Anatomically correct for a marshmellow maybe.

    -1 :-) :-)

Casper and the Pillsbury Doughboy were seen together in Provincetown.

    
      I think it's "marshmallow".  What on earth is the derivation
     of this strange word ?  I've always wondered.
    
      bb

	it was originally made from the root of the marsh-mallow plant.

There's a plant called a marshmallow.  It's a variety of mallow.
Apparently the confection used to be made from the root of this plant.

    Hey, it's a tuber!

    On A slightly different topic....
    
    It seems that in somethings some companies (Disney in this case) are
    too politically correct.  I wanted to buy a video of "Song of the
    South" which I remember from when I was a kid.  I thought it was great!
    Great for a sever year old !  I went to .... I think it was West Coast
    Video, and they said that it was not available in the U.S. ! ! !
    
    I was shocked, so I asked why ? ! ? 
    
    The pinko liberal kid behind the counter gave me a snear and said something
    about it being racist.  He gave me the impression that I had somehow
    violate his air by being there and asking for it!  I walked away into
    the store and an older employee walked up to me and said he was sorry
    about the kids behavior and mentioned that they get about 2-3 request
    per week for the movie.  He also said that it was available in
    Japan....
    
    Very interesting
    
    Dan

    <--- Read seven year old !

    Chris,
    
    If we did a survey on how many children committed violent crimes after
    watching roadrunner versus how many children have committed violent
    crimes after watching violent movies what do you think the results
    would be?
    
    Cartoons are not *real* people doing *real* things to each other.  The
    sexual inuendos go over children's heads [or used to].  I'm not so sure
    today though because the rest of media has used it ad nauseam. [pun
    intended]
    
    Nancy
    

| <<< Note 446.129 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| Casper and the Pillsbury Doughboy were seen together in Provincetown.


	How sweet.... 

    
    The Pillsbury Doughboy is the Michelin Man's bastard child.
    

    Binder surely will get the pun.. :-) :-)
    
    hint [ad nauseum]

	Who was the mother???? Mrs. Butterworth?

    Nancy, to your question either would be rare.
    
    Chip

    Re: .136
    
    >how many children committed violent crimes after watching roadrunner 
    >versus how many children have committed violent crimes
    
    Not many children commit crimes.  It would be far more meaningful to
    measure how many kids commit violent acts (such as beaning a sibling
    with a toy) after viewing various programming.

Just like to mention that I've entered the
Ab Fab Binge and Purge Contest and hopefully
I'll be hearing from Edina and Pats soon!!

Sweetie Darling, ooooo, I do hope I bloody win.

just imagine, sweetie...
Binge binge binge in London
Purge purge purge in Nepal
Oh, it's better than waking up under
Mick Jagger, sweetie!  Or was it Keith Moon?

Bubble??  Why, of course, sweetie.

    
    > The pinko liberal kid behind the counter gave me a snear and said something
    > about it being racist.  He gave me the impression that I had somehow
    
    There are songs from it on many of the disney music compilation
    VHS tapes.   My son loves these tapes.  
    
    I don't know about racist, but it's certainly very violent.  One song
    states that you should zipper your doo-dah, and if you've ever done
    that in the men's room you'll know that it can hurt like the blazes.
    
    
    Colin
    

    .140
    
    Binder had a lousy morning and has been skipping this topic.  Had to
    back up to find the pun, but yes, he got it.  Without having read the
    hint.

    .150
    
    [Whew]! :-)

    	Who was it in Hollywood that was trying to prove that Captain
    	Kangaroo and shows like that were the real culprits for societal
    	violence?

    Howard Hughes?

 Soupy Sales?

    	It was some movie executive, if I recall correctly.

    Dole is just an old, babbling idiot.  Nothing like a little controversy
    to spark his campaign.  Who's the corporate sponsor -- Geritol?
    
    My prediction -- no one will give a damn 4 weeks from now about this
    whole affair.

    No they won't care in 4 weeks.  Only news item then will be Clinton's
    resignation.
    
    Mike

    I'll take that bet.

    If Hollywood encourages violence and violent acts, then what about talk
    show hosts who tell people where to shoot federales for the most
    impact?  
    
    

I don't think Dole is a fan of Liddy.

    If it says Liddy, Liddy, Liddy on the label label label it'll make for
    a really good fable fable fable.  
    
    Brian "I just made that up" McBride
    

    <--- It's nice to know I have something to strive for.

    Don't have very tough goals, do ya?

Hey, has anyone noticed that Dole and Liddy both do canned fruit?

 yes, you have.

 Libby does canned fruit

    Dole and Liddy ARE both canned fruit!
    
    Chip

| <<< Note 446.157 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>


| No they won't care in 4 weeks. Only news item then will be Clinton's 
| resignation.

	Mike... too funny!!!

    pre-emptive hollyweird attack snarf
    

    
    Just got a glimpse of it on the news last night, but there was Dole,
    waving the newspaper report about the murder in Avon by those kids
    claiming, at least one of them, to be Natural Born Killers.  Didn't
    hear what he had to say about it.
    
    IMO, poor taste to wave this poor man's senseless murder around for
    political gain.
    
    Mary
    

    
    	yeah, I'm a bit surprised at Dole's dogged following of this
    non-issue. Political posturing at it's worst...
    
    

    You expected good taste from Dole?  

from the pine-apple, yeah!

    > IMO, poor taste to wave this poor man's senseless murder around for
    > political gain.

    Sounds like Billy and Oklahoma City.

    Dan

    
    Headline in yesterday's Boston Globe pg. 3
    
              Clinton denounces sex, violence on TV
    
                  By John Harris Washington Post
    
    
     
      Seems Dole isn't alone... can we now expect to see verbal abuse of
    Clinton (not that he hasn't had any lately) for his "stand"?
    
    
      

    
    I suggest that you don't hold your breath...... :-(

    People are soooo accustomed to Slick flip-flopping, that they just
    don't care anymore....


    :-)
    Dan

    >>          Clinton denounces sex, violence on TV
    
    I'm sure he does... he prefers to do his sex and violence
    in private.
    
    Chris