[MD] Ham unlike you I will not create false idols

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo]
> On the production side, Americon Idol is huge business, an entertainment 
> industry (like other industries) that is more concerned with generating 
> "profit" than with anything else.
> 
> [Platt]
> Many shows lose money. Anyway, what's wrong with trying to make a buck?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Nothing at all. But when that's all that matters, you end up with American 
> Idol. 

If that's "all that matters" why aren't you working in the private sector where you
say you could make big bucks. Far from being all that matters, millions like you make
a buck doing what they want to do. 

> If the producers can put this show out and make "profit", why should 
> any of your concerns matter at all. They're earning money. It's a free 
> market. Profit is all that matters. American Idol is quite the success. If 
> quality is "what people value", then American Idol has a lot of quality.

Since when is quality determined by what a lot of people value?  

> [Arlo previously]
> On the contestent side, American Idol representes in brilliant example the 
> Quest for Celebrity/Fame/Wealth that is the real American Dream, the only 
> American Dream possible when "material profit" is the end-all of our 
> raison-d-ete.
> 
> [Platt]
> Unrealistic exaggeration . . . the "real American Dream, the only Dream 
> possible . . ."
> 
> [Arlo]
> Not at all unrealistic, but I can understand your desire to avoid it. With 
> the caveat "when material profit is the end-all of our raison-d-ete", the 
> American Dream become nothing more than "attaining wealth and celebrity".

You are an American and it's not your dream, is it? When did you suddenly find it
convincing to make wild, blanket statements?

> According to you, if we weren't offered money, no one would work. So, we 
> work for money. Given this goal of achieving wealth and celebrity, American 
> Idol is a great success story. The businesses make a ton of profit. The 
> winner gets a lot of money, not to mention fame and celebrity. Hey, what's 
> wrong with that?

Working for money doesn't automatically mean your goal is wealth and celebrity. You
work for money like the rest of us, but is wealth and celebrity your goal? 
 
> [Arlo previously]
> This is of course a natural consequence of the recent "damn the pinheaded 
> intellectuals" campaign of the anti-intellectual, socially-focused 
> conservatives.
> 
> [Platt]
> Ah yes, Hillary's great right-ring conspiracy.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Not to be confused with the Great Liberal Media Conspiracy, eh? Or the 
> liberal conspiracy to keep "conservatives" off college campuses. But, of 
> course, all this makes sense in a world where only "liberals" conspire. 
> Upstanding, conservative individuals would never, ever do something like this.

Nice try at changing the subject to avoid defending an indefensible assertion.

> But, since you've bemoaned "intellectuals" broadly and repeatedly on the 
> list, the same bemoaning that occurs on Hannity and Limbaugh, it's funny to 
> me that you'd even try to deny this. 

I've "bemoaned" intellectuals on this list? Prove it.

> [Arlo]
> Attaining "social level" greatness is the True Reason We Exist (according 
> to these folks), something that is Natural and Best Goal we can ever strive 
> for. Strive for Wealth, Strive for Material Profit. And so we elevate the 
> rich and the famous to higher pedastals than ever before in our culture. We 
> read more about Paris Hilton and Sam Walton than about history and philosophy.
> 
> [Platt]
> Putting Paris Hilton and Sam Walton in the same boat may work rhetorically, 
> but not realistically.

> [Arlo]
> Au contraire. Their "wealth" generates jobs for others. Look at all the 
> people employed making "Paris Hilton" products, not to mention the 
> entertainment jobs created to report on the lifestyles of the rich and 
> famous. We also elevate them equally to the status of High Celebrity, for 
> no other reason than their wealth. We read (per capita) more about these 
> rich and famous individuals than we read history, philosophy, poetry or 
> literature.

Your anti-Walmart bias is showing. Walton is a great rags to riches American success
story who built a business so effectively that it attracts hordes of happy customers. 

> [Arlo previously]
> We are more concerned with who's going to be the next American Idol than 
> with our local schools slashing music and arts programs (another natural 
> result of being fixated on "material profit").
> 
> [Platt]
> Since when are music and art programs intellectual concerns? Both music and 
> art arose long before the intellectual level gained dominance.
> 
> [Arlo]
> When schools run according to a business model (i.e., must show profit) 
> arts and music programs are the first cut to make that profit. That's just 
> reality Platt. It also has a lot to do with the re-conceptualization of 
> schools from the "liberal arts model" to the "vocational training model" 
> (again, a result of the idea that "material profit" is the reason we do 
> "anything").

Since when do public schools need to show a profit? And you didn't answer the question. 
 
> Or, if its not all about a culture that is fixated on wealth and fame, why 
> do the producers make it? Why do the contestants go on? Why do we watch?

I don't watch. But millions do because education in good taste has failed, thanks
largely to intellectuals who have taken biology's side in the battle of society vs.
biological forces. (Biology loves sex and violence.)

> [Arlo previously]
> In its campaign to reanimate Randian values, to devalue "Liberal Arts" and 
> University education, to make "material profit" the Ultimate Goal of Human 
> Activity, big business, American consumers and American contestents are all 
> united in the natural end-prodcut called "American Idol".
> 
> [Platt]
> Your anti-caplitalist, anti-free market, anti-American, pro-socialist bias 
> is showing.
> 
> [Arlo]
> When you resort to these typical fear tactics, it only means that you can't 
> argue, so you try to dodge and propagate fear.

And of course your screed about Randian values, material profit, big business, etc.
is not a resort to fear tactics. 

> So I have an "anti-American" 
> bias now, do I? That's a pretty sad deception tactic, Platt. And we had 
> been getting along so well.
> 
> But go ahead, tell everyone that "you're right" because "Arlo wants to put 
> everyone in a gulag". If that's what you think will make your case.

You've told everyone you hate the profit motive and would like to rid the world of
it. The only way you could possibly do that is by using the big stick of government.    

> [Platt]
> What we are failing to teach our children, and what Ham and I deplore, is 
> discrimination, resulting in many thinking that Mick Jagger sings as well 
> as Frank Sinatra, that if you and your friends say something is good, 
> it--ipso facto--must be good. I recommend Ham's essay on "Discrimination."
> 
> [Arlo]
> Oh Jeezuz... you have nothing to offer but the same old archaistic nonsense 
> again.

And you offer . . . Marx. Talk about archaistic!

> Yes, if only everyone had the same tastes as you and Ham, the world 
> would be sooo perfect. A veritable "Leave It To Beaver" world, like 
> Pleasantville. A return to the good ol' days. We were through that before. 
> What you really mean by "discrimination" is "discriminate like me".
> 
> I hearby dub thee... Plarchie Bunker. 

Yes, all libs, because they have no rational basis for argument, resort to name
calling. We saw that again during the hearings on Alito's nomination to the Supreme
Court.   

I'd love to hear you and Ham sing...
> 
> "Boy the way Glen Miller played
> Songs that made the hit parade.
> Guys like us we had it made,
> Those were the days.
> 
> And you knew who you were then,
> Girls were girls and men were men,
> Mister we could use a man
> Like Herbert Hoover again.
> 
> Didn't need no welfare state,
> Everybody pulled his weight.
> Gee our old LaSalle ran great.
> Those were the days."
> 
> Which is frankly too bad, because if you really looked for the cultural 
> reasons behind the success of American Idol, we could likely find some 
> common ground. Instead, its just more ad hoc rage against anything post-"My 
> Three Sons", and an archaistic appeal to the wonderful days of "the Beav'". 
> Frank Sinatra.... sheeeesh.

So you think Mick Jagger really sings as good as Sinatra? Sheeeesh. 

Platt




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/