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

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

I'm going to focus this thread in three parts (1) American Idol is driven by
profit, what is wrong with that?, (2) Is Quality what people value? and (3) is
the solution a return to "the good ol' days"?

(1)
[Platt previously]
Many shows lose money. Anyway, what's wrong with trying to make a buck?

[Arlo replied]
Nothing at all. But when that's all that matters, you end up with American 
Idol. 

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
You avoid the question. If the producers of American Idol can make a buck from
it, what is wrong with that? Shouldn't we be applauding them for their
profit-making success? Since the contestant receives profit, shouldn't we be
applauding him/her for his/her success?

[Platt]
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]
What goal do the producers of American Idol have other than wealth? What goal do
the contestants have other than fame and money? 


(2)
[Arlo previously]
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.

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

[Arlo]
You mean like Walmart? Haven't you defined that as "quality" because a lot of
people shop there? If quality is not determined by what people value, what
determines it? What Platt values? What "the discriminatory elite" value?

(3)
[Platt previously]
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 now]
I've quoted Arnold Toynbee recently, and I think it deserves mention again.

"Schism in the soul, schism in the body social, will not be revolved by any
scheme of return to the good old days (archaism), or by programs guaranteed to
render an ideal projected future (futurism), or even by the most realistic,
hardheaded work to weld together again the deteriorating elements. Only birth
can conquer death -- the birth, not of the old thing again, but of something
new."

I this quote captures quite well modern American politics, and the inevitable
failure of both consersatives (archaism) and liberal (futurism). In true
Pirsigian fashion, it points to the unknown force of "something new", Dynamic
Quality, as being the only thing capable of saving society.

Frank Sinatra appeals to you for the same reason Mick Jagger appealed to the
kids of his generation, and for the same reaon Elvis appealed to kids of his
generation. And in all generations, many liked and many disliked. I can't stand
listening to Mick Jagger. But I love The Clash and The Ramones. I know some who
think Phil Collins is "the best", and others who find his music nauseating. To
suggest that simply because people no longer listen to culturally outdated
music they are "not discriminating", is so sweepingly broad and archaistic, not
to mention blind to the cultural prompting that made you enjoy Sinatra. Drop
Sinatra into an aboriginal or non-western culture, and my guess is that few
would say he "has quality", the same way many would not see the "quality" we
see in a Rembrandt or a Picasso.

It also neglects that music has many forms, from throat singing to Wagnerian
opera, from digideroos to cellos, from classical to punk, from Sinatra to Mick
Jagger. How would you determine, or use "discrimination" to determine which is
best, not only for "you", but for "everyone"?

But, we've been down this road, and it has only one possible outcome. Platt's
music is Quality, everyone else who feels differently is wrong, or merely
"undiscriminating". 


And now, for fun, I'll answer some loose ends...

[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 previously]
Ah yes, Hillary's great right-ring conspiracy.

[Arlo then said]
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.

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

[Arlo]
Indefensible? More like common-sensical. My response was nothing more than
ridicule at YOUR response which was nothing more than an attempt to throw sand.
There is no "right wing conspiracy", but that the conservatives are
"anti-intellectual" and socially-minded, is evident from every radio show,
every press conference and every soapbox attack they make against
"intellectuals", beginning with THEIR paranoic fear that "liberals are
conspiring to keep conservative thought off campus". 

[Platt previously]
Putting Paris Hilton and Sam Walton in the same boat may work rhetorically,  but
not realistically.

[Arlo previously]
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.

[Platt]
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]
My anti-Walmart bias is showing? Oh dear me. But you nicely evade the question.
What has "rags to riches" to do with anything? You support inheritence? Why is
Paris Hilton's riches any less than Sam Waltons? Do they not both employ many
other people, from production to retail? Do we not value them both because of
their wealth? If not, what else do we value them for? Their art? Their talent?
Their selflessness? What?

[Arlo previosly]
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").

[Platt]
Since when do public schools need to show a profit? And you didn't answer the
question. 

[Arlo]
Public schools must balance the books, if not, why are so many schools cutting
arts and music programs? They are the least "valuable", hence they are the
first cut. Doesn't that make sense? Why cut the most valuable programs first?
They are the least "valuable" because they are not vocational, and vocational
education is concerned with "preparing you for a job", i.e., what you need to
know to make money.

If my analysis is wrong, perhaps you can better explain why these programs are
being cut, have been cut for years, across the country?

[Arlo previously]
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?

[Platt]
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]
Nope. Thanks largely to individuals who have trumpeted social level success
above everything else. I doubt the people who make American Idol, make it
because it gives them "biological quality". They do it because it makes them
money. And I doubt the people who are on the show are on it for "biological
value" (which would be on the porn version, maybe), nope, they are on it
because it gives them money.

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
I don't "hate the profit motive". Indeed, it was my suggestion to consider that
people labor for more reasons than profit. Granting that in our world we need
money, I see nothing wrong with considering "material profit" in our labor. I
just think that (1) it is pushed too much, to the point where "profit" trumps
all other concerns, and (2) if we backed off "material profit", and talked
about "identity" and "care" in our labor, we'd all be better off. And we'd be
without "American Idol". But, since Profit is King, it's here to stay.

Arlo