| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2007 02:53:35 AM |
| Object: |
Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
Analysts may argue about causation, but there's no real doubt about
correlation: an important new study from the Culture and Media
Institute shows that those who describe themselves as "heavy" TV
viewers embrace distinctly liberal attitudes on a range of crucial
issues, placing them well to the left of those who report "light" TV
viewing.
The study, conducted by the respected polling firm Fabrizio,
McLaughlin & Associates in December, 2006, drew responses from more
than 2000 Americans aged 18 and above. This investigation classified
"heavy" TV viewers as those who devoted four hours (or more) per
evening to watching the tube - and found 25% of the public fit that
description. "Light" TV viewers (22.5% of the sample) were those who
watched one hour per night or less. In other words, the self-described
"heavy" viewers consumed, on average, more than four times the amount
of nightly television as the self-consciously "light" viewers.
These starkly contrasting TV habits linked directly to dramatic
differences in the two groups in terms of both attitudes and actions.
For instance, heavy TV viewers proved far more likely to agree with
the statement "the government needs to get bigger" than were light
viewers (26% to 12%). They were also more likely to endorse the idea
that "government should be responsible for providing retirement
benefits for everyone" (64% to 43%), much more likely to declare
themselves "pro choice" on abortion (57% to 43%), more likely to back
"a government run health system" (63% to 43%), and much less likely to
attend church "at least weekly" (28% to 47%).
In fact, a range of significant real world behaviors connect in
striking manner to the amount of television we consume. For instance,
among those who commit four hours a night (or more) to the idiot box,
a stunning 56% say they never volunteer time to "causes and
charities"; only 27% of light viewers (one hour a night or less) make
the same statement. When it comes to writing checks, there's a similar
disparity: 24% of heavy viewers give no charity at all, but only 11%
of light TV viewers shun their charitable responsibilities.
Brian Fitzpatrick of the Culture and Media Institute, who helped
direct the study and reported on its findings, made no formal attempt
to explain the association between liberal attitudes and deep
immersion in televised entertainment and information. At the study's
Washington, D.C. unveiling on June 6th, however, I delivered the
keynote address and offered three possible explanations for the
connection between leftist perspective and TV addiction (anyone who
watches more than four hours every night almost certainly deserves the
designation "addict").
First, and most obviously, the heavy television watcher gives so much
attention to the tube (a minimum of 28 hours per week, remember) that
hell find scant time to spare for real-world relationships. Any
individual who commits the bulk of his waking, non-working hours to
his TV set will find it difficult to take part in the "little platoons
of society" (family and neighborhood associations) that Edmund Burke
cites as essential to liberty and conservatism.
A heavy TV viewer inevitably short-changes his communal and intimate
relationships in favor of his engagement with the phantom characters
on the tube. On the one hand, lonely people with few meaningful
personal relationships will turn to the TV set to fill the empty
spaces in their lives; on the other hand, TV addicts will end up
harming the meaningful friendship and family connections that make
life worth living.
Either way, the isolation associated with hours and hours in front of
the tube leads to liberal values and viewpoints. In every election,
single people prove vastly more likely to vote for Democrats than do
married people: Republican Presidential candidates have won majorities
of married voters even in elections where Democrats proved victorious
overall (as with Bob Dole's ill-starred race in 1996).
People who see themselves as alone in the world, with no network of
spouses or fellow congregants, frequently turn to government as a
source of support and comfort-just as they'd turn to television as a
source of phony companionship. It makes sense that loneliness and
helplessness and disconnection would breed both liberalism and heavy
TV viewing; just as a vibrant family life, and communal participation,
would produce less television and more conservative self-reliance.
Television news and televised entertainment both contribute to a sense
that we live in a dark, dysfunctional, alarming world - and that
perception reinforces the core concepts of liberalism. The left
depends on a gloomy vision of the present and future - how else could
its adherents demand sweeping, ambitious government initiatives to
redistribute wealth, stop global warming, rescue the poor, repeal
racism and homophobia, restructure health care, and so forth?.
By the same token, television demands constant reminders of bad news
and conflict. News broadcasts ("If it bleeds, it leads") rely on
violence, crime, natural disasters, scary prospects, horrifying
epidemics, economic setbacks, and ecological terrors. Reassuring
realities - about the steady progress for rich and poor alike, in
every corner of the globe - never make it to TV reports, nor do
wholesome, ordinary, functional families command much attention in
media entertainments.
The great TV critic Leo Tolstoy began "Anna Karenina" with the wise,
unforgettable declaration: "All happy families are the same, but
unhappy families are different in dramatic and compelling ways." In
other words, novels and sitcoms, movies and reality shows, seldom
focus on normal, productive, stable, loving family units where the
members obey the law, love their country and pay their taxes. Instead,
the 28 hours a week (minimum) viewed by heavy TV watchers amounts to
28 hours a week of weirdness.
Wholesome stories (in the dated style of "Leave it Beaver" or "Father
Knows Best") have gone out of fashion not because they don't exist
anymore (most of us actually live such stories) but because the
desperate competition for viewer attention (among literally hundreds
of cable channels, video games, DVD's, and networks) promotes a bias
for the bizarre. This in turn connects to a sense that the world's
gone mad, and requires some sort of radical (usually leftist
governmental initiative to avert looming apocalypse.
In this sense, it's perhaps unsurprising that the only major issue in
which heavy TV watchers take a more conservative viewpoint than light-
viewing counterparts is immigration. Fully 66% of heavy TV viewers
agree with the statement that America "should cut back or stop all
immigration from other countries"; among light viewers, only 50%
concur. Given the hysterical nature of much televised coverage of the
suddenly diagnosed "immigration crisis"(anyone seen Lou Dobbs
lately?), it should come as no shock that those who rely most heavily
on television for their notions of reality would be the same folks who
feel most prepared to demand radical measures on this issue.
By its very nature, TV (like all other visual media) relies on image
rather than ideas, superficiality rather than substance. Television
connects and communicates by stirring the emotions, not by offering
profound thoughts or probing analysis. Immediacy represents the
medium's principal virtue: TV broadcasts can put you "right there,"
experiencing dramatic events in the very moments that they unfold, but
they never do well at giving a sense of context or continuity.
With Hurricane Katrina, for instance, televised reports offered a
powerful sense of devastation and suffering, while suggesting that
President Bush in some way caused every imaginable misfortune. The
riveting coverage, however, could hardly convey the truth that the
long-term Democratic establishment in New Orleans and Baton Rouge
actually bore primary responsibility for the lack of adequate
emergency preparations, and hardly addressed the Big Easy's pre-
hurricane status as the most impoverished city in the country.
The television emphasis on immediacy and impatience (when people get
bored they quickly change the channel) feeds the nation's most
destructive epidemic: the dreaded "Do Something Disease": the
conviction that every problem demands immediate activism in order to
make us feel better, regardless of whether the gestures in question
actually provide a long-term improvement in the situation.
Liberalism cherishes such meaningless feel-good notions. The Democrats
feel outraged at the rise in gas prices, so they demand a satisfying
and vindictive "wind-fall profits tax" on the greedy oil companies-
never mind the fact that raising taxes on an industry always makes the
prices of its product go up, not down. The nation feels disgusted and
outraged at the brutal death of Matthew Shepard, so the liberals
demand new "hate crimes" legislation - regardless of the reality that
it's already against the law to rob any victim (gay or straight) and
to beat him to death, and that the gay student's two killers are
already serving two consecutive life sentences (each) for his murder.
Liberal hero Lyndon Johnson looks at the pain of destitution in the
United States and launches his vaunted, costly "War on Poverty" - but
as President Reagan ultimately observed, "We had a War on Poverty, and
Poverty won." Five Trillion dollars in social spending attempted to
redeem the status of the nation's poor but by most measures, the many
well-intentioned programs only made the situation worse. Nevertheless,
leftists defend the failed efforts at amelioration (just as they
apologize for failed socialist experiments around the globe) because
the do-gooders made us all feel better about attempting to address the
suffering of the wretched of the earth - regardless of disastrous
outcomes.
Like the tacky ending of a supposedly uplifting TV show, liberal
programs emphasize feelings more than consequences, good intentions
more than good results. No wonder that those who make TV the major
factor in their lives feel most comfortable with leftist efforts to
remake the world; and no wonder that those who embrace liberal values,
find encouragement and sustenance in the shallow, manipulative,
context-free world of televised news and entertainment.
In describing the common ground between the TV medium and the liberal
world-view, I haven't once cited the long-standing (and highly
credible) charges of leftist media bias. The provocative new study
from the Culture and Media Institute doesn't examine what the
respondents choose to watch, but rather measures the overall extent of
their TV viewing, regardless of content. Perhaps some of the heavy
viewers spend all four hours per night riveted by The History Channel,
or Discovery, or PBS (fat chance).
For the purposes of this study, and for my analysis, it doesn't matter
how tasteful or admirable the viewing selections: four hours (or more)
per night will bring the same doleful impact-leading to more isolation
and less durable and significant real world relationships, a more dire
perspective on the world around us along with a corresponding sense of
desperation and powerlessness, and a superficial, impatient, emotional
emphasis on immediacy and feeling, rather than context and
consequence.
In other words, the problem with heavy television viewing isn't the
low quality of what we watch (though God knows the quality is low) but
rather the high quantity. That means that the most important response
to the study at hand (especially for those who want to raise their
children free of the taint of liberal pathologies) isn't to push for
supply side solutions from mass media, but to deploy demand solutions
for every American family.
We may remain unable to impact what the TV industry makes, but we can
certainly change what each of us takes - and resolve to count
ourselves among the connected, clear thinking light viewers, rather
than the addled, lonely, and dysfunctional heavy consumers of the pop
culture's principal form of mindless and misleading diversion.
Michael Medved is a film critic, best-selling author and nationally
syndicated radio talk show host.
.
|
|
| User: "Startlemyerfieldson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
14 Jun 2007 09:53:52 AM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@emailaccount.com> wrote in message
news:1181807615.144842.3880@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Oh, you mean like the 700 club? TBN maybe?
Yup, liberally fleecing little old ladies out of their SS benefits...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
14 Jun 2007 12:37:53 PM |
|
|
In article <1181807615.144842.3880@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrumpet@emailaccount.com> writes:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions?
Dunno: I never watch TV.
You?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William December Starr" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
14 Jun 2007 11:05:55 PM |
|
|
In article <1181807615.144842.3880@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrumpet@emailaccount.com> quoted:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Enough said.
--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
14 Jun 2007 03:53:51 AM |
|
|
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
14 Jun 2007 05:28:32 AM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 4:53 am, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
I don't know if the story is true. For instance, something like
90% of Americans bought the con about Saddam Hussein's
WMD, but the proportion was much lower in New York City,
where there are a great variety of information sources, than it
was out in the hinterland, where people are dependendent on
a few channels of TV and one or two newspapers probably
owned by the same people. The most likely explanation
seems to be the abject servitude and hucksterism of the
mass media sucking up to its right-wing bosses.
But if it is true, then all that hucksterism has been for
naught (except it made a lot of money). Just think, all
that fear- and war-mongering for nothing!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
14 Jun 2007 08:57:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:28:32 -0700, *Anarcissie*
<anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 14, 4:53 am, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
I don't know if the story is true. For instance, something like
90% of Americans bought the con about Saddam Hussein's
WMD, but the proportion was much lower in New York City,
where there are a great variety of information sources, than it
was out in the hinterland, where people are dependendent on
a few channels of TV and one or two newspapers probably
owned by the same people. The most likely explanation
seems to be the abject servitude and hucksterism of the
mass media sucking up to its right-wing bosses.
But if it is true, then all that hucksterism has been for
naught (except it made a lot of money). Just think, all
that fear- and war-mongering for nothing!
I think you are confusing a generalism, with a specific instance.
Unfortunately, Clinton changed the law to allow big corporations to
take over far more of the media, and we lost the fair presentation of
political views, so we then got a big push of propaganda from the
pro-rich benefits/facism group.
On the whole, I do think that there is a more liberal viewpoint
demonstrated in general on TV.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
14 Jun 2007 09:17:54 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jun., 15:57, (Kate ) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:28:32 -0700, *Anarcissie*
<anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 14, 4:53 am, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
I don't know if the story is true. For instance, something like
90% of Americans bought the con about Saddam Hussein's
WMD, but the proportion was much lower in New York City,
where there are a great variety of information sources, than it
was out in the hinterland, where people are dependendent on
a few channels of TV and one or two newspapers probably
owned by the same people. The most likely explanation
seems to be the abject servitude and hucksterism of the
mass media sucking up to its right-wing bosses.
But if it is true, then all that hucksterism has been for
naught (except it made a lot of money). Just think, all
that fear- and war-mongering for nothing!
I think you are confusing a generalism, with a specific instance.
Unfortunately, Clinton changed the law to allow big corporations to
take over far more of the media, and we lost the fair presentation of
political views, so we then got a big push of propaganda from the
pro-rich benefits/facism group.
On the whole, I do think that there is a more liberal viewpoint
demonstrated in general on TV.
And tolerance, open-mindedness and openness are wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
14 Jun 2007 10:31:09 AM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 10:17 am, wrote:
On the whole, I do think that there is a more liberal viewpoint
demonstrated in general on TV.
Overall That's correct, but the establishment bias blows that one
completely out of the water.
And tolerance, open-mindedness and openness are wrong?- Hide quoted text -
Yes, if you buy into right wing values...yes they are. But remember,
the USA is the country that elected Bush, by comparison the television
industry is left of that mainstream.
Who said it; "Reality has a Liberal Bias"? I rather agree with that
quote.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
15 Jun 2007 12:03:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:31:09 -0000, Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:17 am, wrote:
On the whole, I do think that there is a more liberal viewpoint
demonstrated in general on TV.
Overall That's correct, but the establishment bias blows that one
completely out of the water.
And tolerance, open-mindedness and openness are wrong?- Hide quoted text -
Yes, if you buy into right wing values...yes they are. But remember,
the USA is the country that elected Bush, by comparison the television
industry is left of that mainstream.
Who said it; "Reality has a Liberal Bias"? I rather agree with that
quote.
Stephan Colbert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Price" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 02:56:25 AM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 6:53 pm, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
If you want to see closed mindedness, ask tell a "liberal" that you
support gun rights. No Klan member was more fixed, obstinate and
irrational in their the "tolerant" when faced with the possibility
that
they are wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 04:19:21 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:56:25 -0700, Michael Price <nini_pad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:53 pm, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
If you want to see closed mindedness, ask tell a "liberal" that you
support gun rights. No Klan member was more fixed, obstinate and
irrational in their the "tolerant" when faced with the possibility
that
they are wrong.
Ain't necessarily so, Sport. In most right-winger's eyes, I'd qualify
as a flaming leftist commie pinko, and the only way you're getting my
gun is if you have a bigger one. And lots of backup. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 11:33:46 PM |
|
|
On 17-Jun-2007, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
If you want to see closed mindedness, ask tell a "liberal" that you
support gun rights. No Klan member was more fixed, obstinate and
irrational in their the "tolerant" when faced with the possibility
that
they are wrong.
Ain't necessarily so, Sport. In most right-winger's eyes, I'd qualify
as a flaming leftist commie pinko, and the only way you're getting my
gun is if you have a bigger one. And lots of backup. <G>
Yeah, there must be some new definition of Lberal that is as fluid as
right-wing whackos can make it. I'm a Liberal, and I've said that if the
NRA didn't exist, I'd probably have to start something like it...
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 08:01:24 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:19:21 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:56:25 -0700, Michael Price <nini_pad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:53 pm, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
If you want to see closed mindedness, ask tell a "liberal" that you
support gun rights. No Klan member was more fixed, obstinate and
irrational in their the "tolerant" when faced with the possibility
that
they are wrong.
Ain't necessarily so, Sport. In most right-winger's eyes, I'd qualify
as a flaming leftist commie pinko, and the only way you're getting my
gun is if you have a bigger one. And lots of backup. <G>
This liberal has had a .22 since age 5 (child rearing seems to be
different in these days of "play dates" and unremitting adult
supervision). I have a couple of those and Mr. .357 for louder
arguments.
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 10:49:32 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:01:24 -0500, Don Martin
<drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:19:21 -0400, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:56:25 -0700, Michael Price <nini_pad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:53 pm, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
If you want to see closed mindedness, ask tell a "liberal" that you
support gun rights. No Klan member was more fixed, obstinate and
irrational in their the "tolerant" when faced with the possibility
that
they are wrong.
Ain't necessarily so, Sport. In most right-winger's eyes, I'd qualify
as a flaming leftist commie pinko, and the only way you're getting my
gun is if you have a bigger one. And lots of backup. <G>
This liberal has had a .22 since age 5 (child rearing seems to be
different in these days of "play dates" and unremitting adult
supervision). I have a couple of those and Mr. .357 for louder
arguments.
I don't actually own any guns right now. My ex wife made me get rid of
them when we were married, and it seems like whenever I start
seriously thinking about replacing them, the money's always needed for
something else. I do miss my S&W Model 29. It was one of the older
ones with the barrel pin and counterbored chambers. They don't make
'em like than anymore. :-(
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 08:37:37 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:56:25 -0700, Michael Price <nini_pad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:53 pm, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
If you want to see closed mindedness, ask tell a "liberal" that you
support gun rights. No Klan member was more fixed, obstinate and
irrational in their the "tolerant" when faced with the possibility
that they are wrong.
In the spirit of the Second Amendment, and of "original intent", I
fully support the right of all Americans to own flintlocks, sabers,
and dueling pistols. To claim or imply that the Founding Fathers would
have approved of all citizens having unfettered access to modern arms
such as rocket launchers, uzis, hand grenades, tactical nuclear
devices, et al, seems rather dubious.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 04:10:06 PM |
|
|
On Jun 17, 9:37 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:56:25 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:53 pm, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
If you want to see closed mindedness, ask tell a "liberal" that you
support gun rights. No Klan member was more fixed, obstinate and
irrational in their the "tolerant" when faced with the possibility
that they are wrong.
So you say. The facts may be very different.
In the spirit of the Second Amendment, and of "original intent", I
fully support the right of all Americans to own flintlocks, sabers,
and dueling pistols. To claim or imply that the Founding Fathers would
have approved of all citizens having unfettered access to modern arms
such as rocket launchers, uzis, hand grenades, tactical nuclear
devices, et al, seems rather dubious.
What was their attitude towards the possession
of the large weapons of the era by people other
than the military and the police?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 05:10:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:10:06 -0700, *Anarcissie*
<anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 17, 9:37 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:56:25 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:53 pm, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
If you want to see closed mindedness, ask tell a "liberal" that you
support gun rights. No Klan member was more fixed, obstinate and
irrational in their the "tolerant" when faced with the possibility
that they are wrong.
So you say. The facts may be very different.
In the spirit of the Second Amendment, and of "original intent", I
fully support the right of all Americans to own flintlocks, sabers,
and dueling pistols. To claim or imply that the Founding Fathers would
have approved of all citizens having unfettered access to modern arms
such as rocket launchers, uzis, hand grenades, tactical nuclear
devices, et al, seems rather dubious.
What was their attitude towards the possession
of the large weapons of the era by people other
than the military and the police?
They had no problem with private individuals owning cannon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 06:04:03 PM |
|
|
David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:u8cb73tt0sdae0kgod9bilvop4p8fa32o0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:10:06 -0700, *Anarcissie*
<anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 17, 9:37 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:56:25 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:53 pm, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or
is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers
to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
If you want to see closed mindedness, ask tell a "liberal" that you
support gun rights. No Klan member was more fixed, obstinate and
irrational in their the "tolerant" when faced with the possibility
that they are wrong.
So you say. The facts may be very different.
In the spirit of the Second Amendment, and of "original intent", I
fully support the right of all Americans to own flintlocks, sabers,
and dueling pistols. To claim or imply that the Founding Fathers would
have approved of all citizens having unfettered access to modern arms
such as rocket launchers, uzis, hand grenades, tactical nuclear
devices, et al, seems rather dubious.
What was their attitude towards the possession
of the large weapons of the era by people other
than the military and the police?
They had no problem with private individuals owning cannon.
I do have a few quaestions about the 'constitutional' aspects to
unregulated gun ownership in the USA. As I read it, the purpose was to
enable a force of armed citizens to be raised rapidly in the event of the
nation requiring defending from invasion. Well, maybe that was all well and
good back then, but wouldn't such behaviour now qualify as a criminal act by
un-uniformed illegal combatants?
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
18 Jun 2007 09:28:35 AM |
|
|
On Jun 17, 7:04 pm, "brique" <briquen...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
David Johnston <d...@block.net> wrote in message
news:u8cb73tt0sdae0kgod9bilvop4p8fa32o0@4ax.com...> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:10:06 -0700, *Anarcissie*
<anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 17, 9:37 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:56:25 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:53 pm, wrote:
On 14 juin, 09:53, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrum...@emailaccount.com>
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849349/posts
Why TV Addiction Links to Liberalism
Townhall.com ^ | June 13, 2007 | Michael Medved
Posted on 06/12/2007 10:11:53 PM PDT by gpapa
Does heavy TV viewing push people toward more liberal opinions? Or
is
it the impact of pre-existing leftist attitudes that lead viewers
to
invest more of their lives on television?
I know you never answer to the thread you start so why bother, but
this has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted...
Besides, only imbeciles can oppose tolerance and open-mindedness.
Must suck to be you.
If you want to see closed mindedness, ask tell a "liberal" that you
support gun rights. No Klan member was more fixed, obstinate and
irrational in their the "tolerant" when faced with the possibility
that they are wrong.
So you say. The facts may be very different.
In the spirit of the Second Amendment, and of "original intent", I
fully support the right of all Americans to own flintlocks, sabers,
and dueling pistols. To claim or imply that the Founding Fathers would
have approved of all citizens having unfettered access to modern arms
such as rocket launchers, uzis, hand grenades, tactical nuclear
devices, et al, seems rather dubious.
What was their attitude towards the possession
of the large weapons of the era by people other
than the military and the police?
They had no problem with private individuals owning cannon.
I do have a few quaestions about the 'constitutional' aspects to
unregulated gun ownership in the USA. As I read it, the purpose was to
enable a force of armed citizens to be raised rapidly in the event of the
nation requiring defending from invasion. Well, maybe that was all well and
good back then, but wouldn't such behaviour now qualify as a criminal act by
un-uniformed illegal combatants?
By the present U.S. government, which many enthusiasts
of private weapons ownership do not regard with much
favor.
I think the potentials for both self-defense from external
invasion, and for armed revolution, was held to be good
things at the time when the Constitution and Bill of Rights
were adopted. The view of the state then held by liberals
was much different than that which evolved in the 19th
and 20th centuries.
The total state allows us to build big airplanes and put
big bombs in them, and in turn the big airplanes and
big bombs make the total state necessary to protect us
from them. Some of the time.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 07:47:02 PM |
|
|
brique wrote:
David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:u8cb73tt0sdae0kgod9bilvop4p8fa32o0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:10:06 -0700, *Anarcissie*
<anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote:
What was their attitude towards the possession
of the large weapons of the era by people other
than the military and the police?
They had no problem with private individuals owning cannon.
I do have a few quaestions about the 'constitutional' aspects to
unregulated gun ownership in the USA. As I read it, the purpose was to
enable a force of armed citizens to be raised rapidly in the event of the
nation requiring defending from invasion.
Correct. Some individuals, especially libertarians, read the Second
Amendment as referring to defense of a free country against its own
government, but that seems clearly to be an error. The founders did not
want the US to have a standing military, and to instead be defended
against aggressors by a militia. To this end the law made every
able-bodied male 18-45 legally a member of the militia (their idea of
"well-organized" was rather broad), later extended to all able-bodied
males 18 or over.
Well, maybe that was all well and
good back then, but wouldn't such behaviour now qualify as a criminal act by
un-uniformed illegal combatants?
How about dressing up as Indians to attack private property?
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
| User: "brique" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 11:16:16 PM |
|
|
Dan Clore <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:5dm342F358vr2U1@mid.individual.net...
brique wrote:
David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:u8cb73tt0sdae0kgod9bilvop4p8fa32o0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:10:06 -0700, *Anarcissie*
<anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote:
What was their attitude towards the possession
of the large weapons of the era by people other
than the military and the police?
They had no problem with private individuals owning cannon.
I do have a few quaestions about the 'constitutional' aspects to
unregulated gun ownership in the USA. As I read it, the purpose was to
enable a force of armed citizens to be raised rapidly in the event of
the
nation requiring defending from invasion.
Correct. Some individuals, especially libertarians, read the Second
Amendment as referring to defense of a free country against its own
government, but that seems clearly to be an error. The founders did not
want the US to have a standing military, and to instead be defended
against aggressors by a militia. To this end the law made every
able-bodied male 18-45 legally a member of the militia (their idea of
"well-organized" was rather broad), later extended to all able-bodied
males 18 or over.
It would seem that not just the founding fathers had a suspicion of standing
armies. A few years back somebody noticed that Parliament had failed to keep
active the law which permits the British Army to exist and thus it had been
'illegal' for some considerable time. Apparently, the law dated back to post
Restoration times and was parliaments way of keeping the Kings military
ambitions in check
Well, maybe that was all well and
good back then, but wouldn't such behaviour now qualify as a criminal
act by
un-uniformed illegal combatants?
How about dressing up as Indians to attack private property?
Mmmm.. well, they would be uniformed, I suppose. .....
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bowman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 11:21:32 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
To claim or imply that the Founding Fathers would
have approved of all citizens having unfettered access to modern arms
such as rocket launchers, uzis, hand grenades, tactical nuclear
devices, et al, seems rather dubious.
The Founding Fathers may not have approved of universal suffrage, either.
Time goes on.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 01:00:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:21:32 -0600, bowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
raven1 wrote:
To claim or imply that the Founding Fathers would
have approved of all citizens having unfettered access to modern arms
such as rocket launchers, uzis, hand grenades, tactical nuclear
devices, et al, seems rather dubious.
The Founding Fathers may not have approved of universal suffrage, either.
Time goes on.
Way to miss the point!
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cloud dreamer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 11:24:20 AM |
|
|
bowman wrote:
raven1 wrote:
To claim or imply that the Founding Fathers would
have approved of all citizens having unfettered access to modern arms
such as rocket launchers, uzis, hand grenades, tactical nuclear
devices, et al, seems rather dubious.
The Founding Fathers may not have approved of universal suffrage, either.
Time goes on.
Or Emancipation.
Which makes it quite clear. Since they were soooo wrong about so many
things, why is it that they are soooo right about the right to bear arms?
Yup. Time goes on. Time to ban everything except the single shot hunting
rifle.
..
--
We must change the way we live,
or the climate will do it for us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 12:41:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:54:20 -0230, cloud dreamer
<Global_Warming@is.real> wrote:
bowman wrote:
raven1 wrote:
To claim or imply that the Founding Fathers would
have approved of all citizens having unfettered access to modern arms
such as rocket launchers, uzis, hand grenades, tactical nuclear
devices, et al, seems rather dubious.
The Founding Fathers may not have approved of universal suffrage, either.
Time goes on.
Or Emancipation.
Which makes it quite clear. Since they were soooo wrong about so many
things, why is it that they are soooo right about the right to bear arms?
Yep, they were dead wrong about a lot of things. Like religious
freedom, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the right of
the people to choose their own leaders by democratic vote, etc., etc.
.... sheesh. What a bunch of idiots. <G>
Yup. Time goes on. Time to ban everything except the single shot hunting
rifle.
Which, with a little practice, isn't that much slower than a bolt or
lever action...
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "bowman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 01:06:39 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
Yep, they were dead wrong about a lot of things. Like religious
freedom, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the right of
the people to choose their own leaders by democratic vote, etc., etc.
... sheesh. What a bunch of idiots. <G>
Unfortunately, while they made a good attempt, the system they set up did
not insure any of those concepts would carry through to the 21st century.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
17 Jun 2007 01:26:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:06:39 -0600, bowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Yep, they were dead wrong about a lot of things. Like religious
freedom, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the right of
the people to choose their own leaders by democratic vote, etc., etc.
... sheesh. What a bunch of idiots. <G>
Unfortunately, while they made a good attempt, the system they set up did
not insure any of those concepts would carry through to the 21st century.
Yeah, they neglected to install a failsafe. <G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
14 Jun 2007 12:44:27 PM |
|
|
TV???
What about computer addiction?
Sitting in front of any electric tube or screen excessively is not a
good way to live our life.
Yes, we can spend some of our life doing it, but if we wish to live a
good life we need to get out a little. Many computer addicts are just
'shells of a human' with glazed eyes, open gapping mouths and hunched
backs sitting all day in front of an electric box looking for the
answer to a happy life when all of the time the answer is within us.
It much easier to fantasize about something else than stay in the hear
and now isn't it? Instead of writing about a fantasy life, go create a
real life, a life you can be proud of. I try and catch myself when I
practice this escapism and work to bring my thoughts back to the
present. Whenever the fantasy starts I check to see what I am escaping
from? Why do I fixate on something else instead of where I'm at?
The Tibetan Buddhists use the tool of meditation - meditation on death
as an exercise to help them live with gratitude and peace in the
present. They meditate on the fact that death is certain to all living
things and the time of their death is also uncertain. This helps them
to live each moment in a way that will give them a good death or
transition into a new reincarnation. Death could come as you read this
or next year, but sooner or later our day will come. We can develop a
higher awareness and gratitude for our life and all that it contains
at this very moment once we accept these facts and treasure how
fragile life is and the gift we have been given. And even as we lay
dying someday we can die peacefully by practicing grateful acceptance
for having the opportunity to have lived a life at all. Once we accept
death peacefully we can move on and need less things to distract and
blind us.
Developing a list of positive time fillers was a big help with my
addictions. As Thoreau wrote in Walden , "The devil finds work for
idle hands." Before heading in this new direction, most of my time
was occupied by what to buy next, overeating rich foods and getting
fat and when I wanted a break from that I had a picnic basket of other
addictive areas to get drugged up with. Most of my new activities are
sport or movement related as they also serve the purposes of helping
with my overeating disease and have the added benefit of improved
health and don't produce clutter like some hobbies do. In addition
they help with depression, balance and equilibrium and brain
functioning. Now, keeping busy is not the cure all for addicts, but it
is a necessary foundational pillar.
Other areas of importance are those activities that relax our minds or
stimulate them for healthy growth potential. Bottom line: is the
activity pleasing to us, healthy, nurturing and sustainable? You can
also use the SCA guidelines for any questions about the activity: is
the activity placing unreasonable demands on my time and energy, will
it place me in legal jeopardy or endanger my mental, physical or
spiritual health? Remember, as Jack LaLane said, exercise and eating
healthy, natural foods are the King and Queen of good health. If you
hate to move and hate to eat well, then do as he also said; "I
developed a liking for things that are good for me."
Now I have much to look forward to in life for activities or rewards
that are not destructive and are sustainable. Activities to occupy
yourself that don't revolve around spending, eating, gambling, drugs
or alcohol or other addictive areas only go so far in recovery though.
You also have to be careful to take time to relax and not escape life
through activity. Horace wrote, "Caelum non animum mutant qui trans
mare currunt--You can run away as far as you like but you'll never get
away from yourself." 12 Step work, reducing stress, repairing the
wreckage of the past and living a balanced life all contribute to
heading in the right recovery direction.
I've enclosed a few of some of my activities below for your perusal.
Also be careful you don't find another excuse to compulsively spend
with each new activity or sport you take up. That is something I have
to watch. For instance. If you take up rollerblading, you buy one pair
of skates and one set or protective gear, etc. You don't buy 5 pairs
of skates 5 different skate bags and 8 sets of skate clothes, in all
colors for each day of the week plus one extra for holidays. If you
want different skates, you sell the old pair and then buy a different
set. Everything is on a "one in ~ one out" basis to avoid compulsive
spending, stockpiling and clutter.
Partial List of My Positive Time Filling Activities:
Hiking, Mountain Bike, Climbing Gym and Rock Climbing, Basketball,
Rollerblading, Trail Running, Jet Skiing, Racquetball, Swim, Sun Bath,
Fishing, Canoeing, Skateboarding, Weight Training, Target Shooting,
Camping, Jogging, Kayaking, Motorcycle, Snowshoe, Downhill Skiing, XC
Skiing, Yoga, Massage, Meditation, Dirt Bike, Free Lectures and Movies
at a Local University, Snow Tubing, Snorkeling / Scuba, Napping or
Relaxing in a Hammock, Bar B Q, Picnics, Library, Spiritual Studies,
Free Musical Events and Concerts, Church Services, Scenic Seasonal Car
Trips, Travel.
Exercise and healthy eating are the king and queen of good health.
They must also sit on a thrown of low stress living. I hope you make
the king and queen part of your life. Here is a small snip from
Psychotherapy Toady regarding the benefits of exercise with addiction.
Why does exercise have such an impact on the emotional brain?
Naturally, there is, first of all, its effect on endorphins. These
tiny molecules secreted by the brain resemble opium and its
derivatives, such as morphine and heroin. The emotional brain contains
many receptors for endorphins, and that's why it is so sensitive to
opium-it immediately radiates a sensation of well-being and
satisfaction by hijacking one of the emotional brain's own intrinsic
mechanisms. Opium has a powerful effect on emotions-in fact, it's the
strongest known antidote to the pangs of separation and mourning.
However, when derivatives of opium are used too often, they can become
habit forming. Brain receptors become inured to them, so the dose must
be systematically increased in order to produce the same effect.
Moreover, because the receptors become less and less sensitive,
regular pleasures lose all their power and potency-including sex, the
pleasure of which is often reduced in drug addicts.
The secretion of endorphins brought on by physical exercise does
exactly the opposite. The more the natural mechanism of pleasure is
gently stimulated by exercise, the more sensitive the mechanism itself
becomes. In addition to relishing sex and life's other big pleasures,
people who exercise regularly actually get more pleasure out of the
little things in life: their friendships, their cats, their meals,
their hobbies, or even the smiles of passersby in the street.
Essentially, it becomes easier for them to be satisfied, And in fact,
the experience of pleasure is just the opposite of depression.
Depression is defined, above all, by the absence of pleasure, more so
than by sadness, which is probably the reason why the release of
endorphins has such a potent antidepressant and anxiolytic effect.
Stimulating the emotional brain by exercise also kindles the immune
system. It promotes the proliferation of "natural killer" cells,
making them more aggressive against infections and cancer cells. The
opposite effect occurs with heroin addicts, whose immunedefenses
collapse, often causing them to become gravely ill.
Exercise may also strengthen another physiological mechanism related
to emotional health. This mechanism involves what we have already
learned about heart rate variability. "'People who exercise regularly
show a greater variability in heart rate and more coherence than
people who do not. This means that their parasympathetic system, the
physiological "brake" that brings on periods of calm, is healthier and
stronger. A good balance between the two branches of the autonomic
nervous system is one of the best potential antidotes to anxiety and
panic attacks. All the symptoms of anxiety start with an overactive
sympathetic system, a dry mouth, accelerated heartbeat, sweating,
trembling, a rise in blood pressure. The sympathetic and
parasympathetic systems are always in opposition. Thus, the more
stimulation the parasympathetic branch receives, the stronger it
becomes-like a developing muscle.
BTW, check out:
http://www.computeraddiction.com/
http://www.rider.edu/suler/psycyber/cybaddict.html
http://cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/Projects/computer-addiction/
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
14 Jun 2007 01:10:29 PM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 10:44 am, V <v...@aol.com> wrote:
TV???
What about computer addiction?
Try to stick to the subject, will you? It wasn't about computers, and
it wasn't about addiction. Sheeeeesh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bugman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why TV Addiction Links To Liberalism |
14 Jun 2007 04:41:26 PM |
|
|
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181844629.874469.308230@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 14, 10:44 am, V <v...@aol.com> wrote:
TV???
What about computer addiction?
Try to stick to the subject, will you? It wasn't about computers, and
it wasn't about addiction. Sheeeeesh.
Addiction is in the title
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
