To: jbe who wrote (14716 ) 11/13/1998 11:40:00 AM From: one_less Respond to of 67261
<<(why should you be surprised that I supported it, by the way?)>> I was not surprised you would support it, I was surprised at the 100%. I am always surprised at 100%. In school if I got a 100% I always figured the teacher left something out of the test because I know there is always something I haven't figured out completely. Anyway, I too agree with the majority of your last post. I aggree that the communications revolution has caught us by surprise and we should be very cautious in its use. I don't agree we can "blame" the media completely. I used to do organization audits. It is a real cheap trick when you get done and tell your client, "guess what, after extensive research and data gathering, I've determined the source of your organizations difficulties. You have a communications problem." Everything in an organization is touched by communication and anywhere there is a problem of course communication is involved. I can walk in to any organization and claim they have a communications problem and get support. By the way people who do such audits always play that ace in the hole. I still hold to my premise that the huge societal problems that we have are indemic and touch all aspects of our culture. Communications is the media for telling us what time it is. If I ask to see your watch and when I hand it back to you telling you that you are late for work, you may not like it. You may be late for work and you may have known it all along, but you probably don't like being reminded of it. If I keep pointing it out you may get annoyed. If TV is annoying because of what it is presenting, guess what; take a look at our culture it is very reflective. I agree with you on your grass roots approach and the kids that I see thriving in modern society have had that kind of support growing up. <<A normal youngster who has respect for himself and others, as well as an appreciation of the "higher" things of life, is probably going to be less likely to engage in promiscuous sex, in the dictonary sense of that word>> I couldn't agree more. As a high school teacher, I used to require students to write in journals when they entered may class while I was taking attendance. Some times I would give them topics like "Imagine you are Michael J. Fox, going "Back to the Future." What would you hope to do for your kids who are now teenagers?" You know what, the "at risk" teens ALWAYS wanted to remove the temptations for drugs, promiscuity, violence, etc. from their teen children. These are the same kids who would throw a fit if anyone critisized their involvement in the same activities. Now these teens are grown up and they have no support, education or modeling on how to raise teens in a reasonably nourishing environment. What chance do they and their kids have in a culture where it is so "uncool" to judge any behavior as wrong. <<Thus, for the time being, it seems to me, we will have to put our primary reliance on education and condoms.>> I don't disagree that it is all that is available to us as a society at large that can legislate anything. It is obviously not a real solution. So as long as we go along saying, its all we've got. We can predict that we will continue to see the spiraling out of control effects that society is now comfortable with. <<As for revolution -- well, revolutions usually cover a lot more than the "sex problem".>> Indeed.