http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/board/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12.aspxen-usSunday, February 26, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12/Values_from_Consumerism-979.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/Please_use_reply__not_post_--_-5186.aspxThursday, February 23, 2012Please use reply, not post -- thanks. Pilgrim]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12/Advertising__a_Change_for_the_Worst-976.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE___Thompson__Tyler__1___Advertising__a_Change_for_the_Worst-5340.aspxSunday, February 26, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/Please_use_reply__not_post_---5185.aspxThursday, February 23, 2012Please use reply, not post -- thanks. Pilgrim]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE___Thompson__Tyler__1___Advertising__a_Change_for_the_Worst-5159.aspxWednesday, February 22, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12/RESPOND_TO_THIS_QUESTION_--_to_begin-967.aspxFriday, February 17, 2012
So, Pilgrim asks this question:

In YOUR view, what is THE MOST PRESSING PROBLEM with American mass media -- and what how can it be solved?

Argue fully why your problem is THE main problem -- and explain your solution if there is one you think will work.

------
In your OTHER TWO ENTRIES later in the week, you may want to tell a fellow group member why hers/his problem is not all that important, focus on a flaw in another's argument, offer an alternative solution, offer supplementary material for another's argument or argue why your problem is more important than another's.

Pilgrim hopes you learn much from this exchange, and he will drop in with a comment here and there. Good luck.

P.S. Remember -- put a 1 after your name in your response to this question; put a 2 and a 3 on your next two entries.]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Tinney_Tanner_1__-5393.aspxSunday, February 26, 2012I agree with you completely and I think that an overhaul of our political structure is in order, in the sense of priorities have to be shifted from keeping the big spending corporations happy, to politicians working for the betterment of our society, and this kind of an overhaul will only happen if we reduce the power of influence that mass media has over our representatives. Taking the limit off of the amount of money that corporations can donate to a campaign was probably the most damning thing that could have happened to our state and idea of democracy. Because this furthers the priority of politicians appeasing the corporations in order to insure promotion and potential votes. Politicians are being transformed from representatives of the people to representatives of corporate interests.
]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Streeter-Dybdahl__Sydney__2___-5382.aspxSunday, February 26, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE__RE___Ulmer__Jessie_-_1__RESPOND_TO_THIS_QUESTION_--_to_begin-5370.aspxSunday, February 26, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Wicker__Meagan_1__-5344.aspxSunday, February 26, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Toor__Amreen-3__-5332.aspxSunday, February 26, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Swallow__Kathryn_2__-5327.aspxSunday, February 26, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Wight_Melanie_1__-5310.aspxSunday, February 26, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Wicker__Meagan_1__-5309.aspxSunday, February 26, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Swallow__Kathryn_2__-5301.aspxSunday, February 26, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE__PILGRIM_Two_more__most_pressing__problems-5298.aspxSunday, February 26, 2012
..the [American] engineer had been pushing the chief to order that one of the young men of the tribe undertake a certain exploration that no one had volunteered to do. The chief declines, explaining to the American, "If I tell a man to do something he doesn't want to do, then I wouldn't be chief anymore."


That's all.

If I tell a man to do something he doesn't want to do, then I wouldn't be chief anymore.

All the other problems are examples of this.




No, I changed my mind. I have ANOTHER single best answer.

The entire nation needs to get off of central nervous system stimulants - all of them, prescribed, quasi-legal, illegal - before we can even think clearly enough as a nation to think about the next step. Speed is the problem, not the solution.]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Streeter-Dybdahl__Sydney__1___-5280.aspxSaturday, February 25, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Ulmer__Jessie_1__-5275.aspxSaturday, February 25, 2012The more and more we depend on media, embody its ideals and reflect a desire for the bizarre “dream world” of consumer culture that it presents, the greater influence we allow media to have over us. The media’s presentation of all things as entertainment is shaping us into a culture that doesn’t take things seriously. The ability of a person to watch a horrific broadcast and then change the channel when it becomes unsettling gets translated to real life, where people acknowledge a problem and then either brush it away, or ineffectively and insincerely attempt to make a change. Unfortunately, these ”changes” usually play straight into the hands of a consumer society, where people buy certain brands or adopt certain lifestyles in order to assuage their guilt. Companies that boast a high level of involvement in third-world countries gain popularity- but not for the reasons they should. The focus in America on “the image” means that people act to help others not for any real sense of empathy, but in order to plug their own ego and image. Media as entertainment stretches to the real world, where the importance, and severity of real-world issues and ideas is degraded into yet another marketing scheme.
]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Swallow__Kathryn_1__-5274.aspxSaturday, February 25, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Swallow__Kathryn_1__-5271.aspxSaturday, February 25, 2012- how important the content of the gender roles might be,
- how important the strictness of the roles might be, and
- how important the difference in them might be?

It certainly seems to be the case that consumerism advocates more extreme gender roles more often than not, partly because taking on a role - any role - means that they can sell you all the paraphernalia associated with that role, and partly because unsatisfying lives are necessary to drive consumerism. AND it's hard to imagine cultivating desire to the degree that consumerism does WITHOUT invoking sex.

The damage done to people by repressive gender roles, like other systemic oppression, is likely to be reproduced on a larger scale in the larger society. If this is the strongest of the effects, it is possible that much of the other oppression may actually be caused by people explicitly BECAUSE of the damage done to them by gender.

But if this were the strongest effect, I'd expect to see it universally, and I don't. There are traditional South American societies, for example, with relatively rigid, separate roles for men and women, but either role is much larger and more satisfying than either role in America, and I could imagine happily residing in EITHER role, because both roles include complete lives - work, play, political power, personal power over relationships, involvement with community and children, etc.

But I cannot imagine being happy in America without as much power over corporations as they have over me.]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Streeter-Dybdahl__Sydney__1___-5270.aspxSaturday, February 25, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Thompson__Tyler__1___-5269.aspxSaturday, February 25, 2012 To be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about your idea of a general boycott, but I agree that something should be done. Rather than a boycott, I would suggest not only presenting corporations with positive feedback as to our preferred representations, but that those who are passionate about this issue take steps to spread this representation themselves, through their own preferred medium. I believe that by getting these positive representations out into our culture, we can begin to evolve our cultural climate for the better.
]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Wight_Melanie_1__-5240.aspxFriday, February 24, 2012]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Tinney_Tanner_1__-5232.aspxFriday, February 24, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE__RE__RE____Whitley__Kenneth__Wicker__Meagan_2__Our_own_ignorance-5222.aspxThursday, February 23, 2012
There's a really old psych experiment, (Asch, 1951) that describes really well the concept that some people use the word "sheeple" for, although others use the more word more sloppily as a sort of generic insult.

Anyways, in the experiment, people looked at three lines and told the experimenter which was longest. The lines were fit on a sheet of paper, and the difference was a couple of inches. By themselves everybody could do it if they weren't blind.

Now, do the same test, but don't tell the subject that everyone else being "tested" are your confederates. They all, unanimously, pick a different line and insist that IT is the longest.

What happens is that people split into three distinct groups. One group, about 25%, doesn't pay any attention to what the others say. They see what they see (that's me, definitely). About a third are emotionally torn between the two perspectives, and some get really upset. Sometimes they change their mind, sometimes not.

And then there's the last group, who conformed to the majority view in typically eleven out of twelve trials. Another similar experiment suggests that they don't remember adapting to the group later, they remember choosing what the group chose.

He also found that even a single defector from the large group pretty much destroyed their power to influence people.

So if you're in the first group, it's completely natural to you to not take media at its word, OR to buy into its emotions. If you're in the third group, media are much more dangerous to you. It doesn't mean you're inferior - I suspect the third group contains the most effective bosses, politicians, community organizers, managers...

...but I think it's silly to pretend that this distinction doesn't exist, and that everything that works for people on one end of the spectrum should work for everyone on the other end. I'm on one extreme - I have to work really hard to understand people who are unlike me, although I know I'm strange. Worst person in the world for buying presents. My partner, on the other hand, is EXTREMELY people-sensitive, and can read strangers well enough to pick good presents for them.

The Bible calls them sheep and goats, and doesn't seem to appreciate the goats much. I'm for diversity myself.

So what if you're a sheeple and not a goatple? Fill your head with grand dreams, brilliant ideas, and good relationships instead of violence and abuse, and that will be your contribution to consensus reality. The independent ones will follow. We won't buy the idea that playing Doom with unarmed civilians in the Middle East is a good career move, or that Pepsi gives you a better quality of family and friends, but we'll follow good ideas (like democracy, or diversity) really far.

]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE__RE___Toor__Amreen-1__RESPOND_TO_THIS_QUESTION_--_to_begin-5220.aspxThursday, February 23, 2012
"But, media never show us how the rest of the world is affected by our consumerism!"
Boy, is THAT an understatement.

I had the thought - what if media tried to show war fairly i.e. if one soldier kills twenty with a missile, we get one shot of the soldier, and twenty shots of either the incoming missile or the dead and wounded up close as others try to care for them? I'm thoroughly sick of media pretty much always, except for in horror movies, always, ALWAYS taking the point of view of the aggressor.

A realistic war movie would be really depressing. Pick a civilian, film their life from their perspective until they are killed, including all their dealing with the dead and wounded. Pick another, follow until they die. Fifty or sixty would make a fair movie. And don't leave out the people dying from bad water - nothing makes a spectacular death scene in a movie like three days shitting yourself to death with dysentery or cholera. AND - when you DO encounter the people with the big weapons, they are as crazy as Dr. Strangelove, or the Tea Party, or the folks running the various countries in the Middle East, never any saner. Isn't realistic more powerful than romanticizing them?

"One way we could end this is by disengaging ourselves from advertisement"
Having done so to a substantial degree, I have to quote the Grateful Dead - what a long, strange trip it's been. I mostly do the internet with NoScript in Firefox - it's pretty much an ad-free internet unless I google "usb stick 16MB sale". It also makes the net safer, but at a cost. I live in an entirely different internet than most people. Big complicated stuff like MySpace, Facebook, Yahoo just don't exist - the net is made up of universities, people with blogs and websites, reporters and activists, YouTubes that don't last very long because of DCMA takedowns, storytellers, crazy people, folks who collect crazy people, and gigantic amounts of factual and technical information. AOL.com is a mail server for my email software. Microsoft.com is an application, not a website. If I'm feeling particularly irritable, I'll turn images off and cruise a text-only internet. Talk about ad-free. But definitely a pair of emerald spectacles.

The transition to ad-free magazines was harder, but it resulted in spending a LOT of time in Western's library, even when I wasn't a student, reading journals. Ads for gene-splicing machines that hook to your PC and let you do the work from a CAD interface kind of tempt me (you mean you can just stick the gene for psilocybin into acidophilus?) but they're not going to make a consumer out of me. (Actually, now that you can pick up this equipment for pocket change at surplus stores in the Bay Area, maybe it would make a good hobby after all)

I don't think there ARE any ad-free fashion magazines, for example. Is it even possible? You certainly can't do an ad-free electronic music magazine - it would be a textbook. And a major part of the fun of some magazines was reading all the little ads in the back. "We set your poems to music!" "Build your own flying saucer!" "Incredible secrets of seduction!" Somehow these ads didn't seem to have the same threat as handing infants over to the psychologists and researchers currently designing kids television - EVEN THOUGH they were frauds, trying to sell you dreams for your money, not products. This seems to imply the possibility of advertising without domination. But what would it take to get THERE? Antitrust laws and a really aggressive Attorney General, for one thing. No one else is in the position to act, and the AG is a lot more immune to pressure than, say, the President.
]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Wicker__Meagan_1__-5206.aspxThursday, February 23, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Thompson__Tyler__1___-5202.aspxThursday, February 23, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE__RE____Whitley__Kenneth__2___Our_own_ignorance-5195.aspxThursday, February 23, 2012
To start off, yes. I believe people have the intelligence to think through what is put in front of them and find some form of truth, as you stated their own truth, and not just blindly take in everything around them without taking the time to process it. For each of us, we have the potential to access our own truth through our experiences and knowledge gained from the world around us. It seems to me, especially after this class, that a lot of people let perceptions and invalid information come into their lives and affect them more than I would see as a safe amount.

In the response to your second point, I believe it depends on how each of us is raised. We all see the world based on how we were (or for rebels weren't) taught to see the world. Maybe this falls on the parents needing to learn new upbringing techniques, I'm not a parent so I do not feel comfortable making the call either way. All I can draw on is from my own experience to really validate my point. As a young girl I was exposed to the typical (I believe, I could be wrong) mass media of kids in my generation. I played with Barbies, watched Disney, etc. But in no way did I grow up thinking that I needed to be disproportionally small around my waist, super tall with long blonde hair, or the need to grow up to marry a prince. Through my upbringing I learned to take in every experience and see it for what it was and decide my own opinion about it. I believe this could be applied to mass media. Take it in, expose yourself to it, but decide an actual opinion on it; not just go with whatever corporate America was trying to sell you without a second thought.

]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE___Toor__Amreen-1__-5192.aspxThursday, February 23, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Wicker__Meagan_1__Our_own_ignorance-5187.aspxThursday, February 23, 2012
But.

One point:
Irving Kristol, considered by many the "father" of the neoconservative movement, said in 1997, "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

What do you think? With these people supplying information to us, do you think that we can think our way to the truth? Would they let us act on it if we did discover it? Or is possible that neoconservative philosophy is by nature antidemocratic?

Another point: I've seen many friends raise children. They almost universally comment on how early boys start playing with guns, and often argue that the kids are too young to have learned it from the media. My response was "we didn't HAVE guns until a few hundred years ago. Are you suggesting that little boys have played with imaginary guns for millions of years, and never invented a real one? No, he learned that from mass media, or from other boys who did". Now in some parts of the world, some kids learn about guns from real life. But not many, and not before age 2. And look at what ELSE those kids know about the social world defined by media.

What do you think? Is it reasonable for people whose entire childhood was conducted in an environment manufactured by consumerist institutions to be able to see through those institutions and take control of the premises the institutions are built on? In other words, if they indoctrinate you in what to like and how to like it for twenty years unsupervised and uncontrolled, are you going to feel comfortable at adulthood trusting "what you like" as a guide to good long-term decisions?

I think finding the "biggest problem" is like finding the spoke on a wheel that does the work. They all do, they only do a tiny bit, and the ones that work hard shift as the wheel rolls. The spoke you cut is the spoke nearest your cutters, not the "best" one. You can always work on yourself, and you can always educate your peers. Your ability to replace mass media with better sources may be limited, and your opportunities to eliminate whole political philosophies few and far between.]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Swallow__Kathryn_1__-5161.aspxWednesday, February 22, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE____Streeter-Dybdahl__Sydney__1___-5153.aspxWednesday, February 22, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE___PILGRIM_--_1__RESPOND_TO_THIS_QUESTION_--_to_begin-5134.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012I think that the most pressing problem with American mass media is how it is seemingly omnipresent in the lives of most Americans and the fact that most viewers are not “properly” educated to critically evaluate and asses the information that they are taking in. This is especially true for the adolescents of the population who are being conditioned to “mindlessly” consume and imitate the unhealthy images that are portrayed by mass media. I feel as if classes on critical assessment of media should be incorporated into schools so that adolescents have a better chance of defining themselves by real life experiences that are accompanied by critical analytical skills, so that they can more capably face the propaganda that floods their daily routines.
]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/The_entertainment_threat-5125.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012 I believe we can begin to address this problem in two ways. First, we must of course continue to educate the public on the true and far-reaching effects of mass media. Second, and I believe most important, we must begin to challenge the medium, to challenge the belief system it is imposing on our society, and to stand up for our own beliefs. It is time to make a change.
]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE___PILGRIM_--_1__RESPOND_TO_THIS_QUESTION_--_to_begin-5124.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012 I believe we can begin to address this problem in two ways. First, we must of course continue to educate the public on the true and far-reaching effects of mass media. Second, and I believe most important, we must begin to challenge the medium, to challenge the belief system it is imposing on our society, and to stand up for our own beliefs. It is time to make a change.
]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/The_cultivation_of_the_individual_-5123.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012 In fact, the most dangerous facet of the cultivation of a consumer society is the creation of a society where importance is fixed on the individual and the individual’s needs as opposed to the needs of the society as a whole. Not only does this mean that larger problems are not being addressed, but that we are slowly loosing the tools with which to communicate and operate as a whole. This is especially dangerous when you consider the fact that most, if not all, of the problems facing America and the world today are not ones easily solved by a single individual. Instead, most dilemmas require complex thought and rigorous work on the part of many people operating as a single unit. Soon, not only will these problems exist, but having lost our ability to work together, we will be unable to solve them.
This is the main problem because it conditions us to act as individuals instead of as a coherent whole, putting our own needs ahead of the needs of others and society. This means that even if other problems such as the negative representations of gender or propaganda are recognized, there is fewer and fewer ways to rectify these problems to as a society.
Some solutions to this problem have already been suggested in class material. Experts studying this phenomena recommend searching out alternative news sources, disengaging from advertising in our lives, and challenging the media monopoly. Personally, I would also add that an additional component to the suggested solutions of this problem must include the disintegration of individual biases and prejudices. After all, it is not only the consumer cultivation by corporations that keeps us from working together towards common goals. Many other barriers stand between America as it exists today and an America capable of working together in confronting social and environmental issues. This will not completely rectify the problem, but if carried out successfully, the removal of personal biases might make us better equipped to work together as a society and so confront the many problems which exist in the world today.
]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/Strict_Gender_Roles_as_Biggest_Problem-5117.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012
]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/RE___PILGRIM_--_1__RESPOND_TO_THIS_QUESTION_--_to_begin-5111.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/most_pressing_and_biggest_may_not_be_the_same-5110.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012
Whether that's its only possible purpose is another question. But right now, the corporate media seem utterly out of control. Climate change denial is a good example, as is the current trouble with the two-party system.

America shifted radically to the right during the eighties, with the media playing a decisive role. They consistently give voice to right-wing "experts" as neutral authorities, often not even named directly as sources, while framing progressive authorities with conservative labels, as well as the taint of "controversy".

The Heritage Institute, for example, is somewhere between Attila the Hun and Vlad Tepes compared to American political preferences, dating back to founder Joseph Coors' (yes, the beer) support of terrorists (Washington Post, May 3, 1985), neo-Nazis (wikipedia:Roger Pearson), racists, anti-union activists, and other right-wingers in the seventies, but has been considered an "authoritative source" by the media, even the supposedly liberal media, for the last few decades.

How long do you put up with this before you write the media off as McPravda, and just read them ironically, or read between the lines who or what has been censored out of existence today?

Back to the question. Is the most pressing problem that they're too big? That their techniques have become too sophisticated for us neurologically? That their sources of data are so one-sided? That economics dictate that they continue to get worse? That the world has outgrown the need for the consumerist culture they are a part of?

Personally I think the most pressing problem is that they exist, and the best short-term solution is to NOT focus on a single answer, but do everything possible, in every realm, to reduce their power and influence, and replace them as sources of information and community.

Be artists. The more artists outside the system, the more art we have and the better lives we have and the less art we need to consume from the system. Not to mention having visions of possible futures the system doesn't approve of.

Raise food. Not everyone, not all of it, but every bit is that much good food that doesn't pass through their hands.

Learn how to recognize reliable information. It rarely, if ever, looks like glossy corporate web sites, and there's more than enough available about nearly everything.

Share technology. Pass old stuff on, pass it through the hands of those who can fix it instead of "recycling" it.

Be active in national politics. To the extent that politicians are NOT corrupt, one message from you equals one message from a lobbyist or interest group. A thoughtful, engaging message can actually create a dialogue with someone whose influence is national in scope. If not lobbyists, SOMEONE has to educate them about local issues.

Employ yourself. If you don't want to work for their values instead of yours, work directly for those whose values you share.

Don't consume mass media. Follow local and regional art, or use the internet to connect with communities elsewhere. Broaden your bell curve.

Be active in local politics. It's relatively easy to understand the issues, and it's relatively easy to make a difference. You can even get elected by accident.

Consume less. It's not a binary, all-or-nothing, go-to-hell-for-one-sin sort of thing, it's the accumulated total of all the stuff everyone consumes. If there's a better option than consuming, take it.

Be patient. Kuhn pointed out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that even scientists typically don't accept new ideas, they just die off and people raised with the new ones then run things.

As Groucho Marx said, those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/Advertising__a_Change_for_the_Worst-5096.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/Media_Monopoly-5093.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/news_as_entertainment-5081.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/False_Gender_Representations-5070.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/Our_Own_Ignorance_Is_Our_Downfall-5065.aspxTuesday, February 21, 2012If Americans started to used what part of their brains we have access to, mass media would not be able to persuade such a majority of us into buying and thinking whatever it is that their big-pocket bosses want us to buy and think. ]]>http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/boards/post/NewYorkTimesifitfits-12-reply/Response-What_s_the_most_important_-5045.aspxMonday, February 20, 2012