StudyGrowKnow

TV’s Good Ol’ Days

January 11, 2013 at 12:13 PM 1 comment

My wife and I were watching some TV the other night.  Specifically, we were watching ME-TV, which runs a lot of the old shows and has quite a line-up.  Whether it’s The Dick Van Dyke Show, Twilight Zone, Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart, Batman, Gunsmoke, Big Valley, Wild Wild West, or any other show, in general, the programming folks at ME-TV reach back to the 60s and 70s (or earlier) and replay shows from what I consider to be TV’s golden era (for the most part).

As we were watching these shows, I noted (once again) how the acting is so much better than what passes for acting today, in most cases.  The dialogue is better, as is the delivery.  Snarkiness did not dominate the shows from those days.  In fact, stupidity was not the focus of the show, but actual relational interplay and even though the 30-minute show of yesterday introduced a problem, focused on it, and wrapped it up – all within the allotted time period – it was far more believable than most shows are today.  That’s generally because the shows today feel the need to focus on extremely serious subjects.  The shows of yesterday focused on serious subjects as well, but they were subjects that affected nearly everyone and because of that, it made people feel as though we were all part of the human race, suffering from the same types of problems and difficulties that were (and still are) common to all of humanity.

The subject of many of today’s TV shows are too often effected or obviously artificially created.  In essence, the TV show of today tries to address problems that it creates, all the while pretending that it is reflecting society.  The shows of yesteryear actually reflected society much better than the shows of today.

The more I try to find a show on the television that simply entertains without being obnoxiously over-written or over-acted, the more I tend to stick with the old shows.  Obviously, we have turned a serious corner with the TV shows of today.  No longer are we dealing with the problems of Bob, Mary, Dick, or Millie, whose troubles often dealt with misunderstanding a conversation in the office, or when Mary had to deal with people thinking she was actually dating Ted, the newscaster on Mary Tyler Moore.  These are things everyone has to deal with and they were serious situations then.

However, these situations have been completely dwarfed by things like abortion, gay rights, living together outside of marriage, gay rights, smoking dope, gay rights, deciding whether or not to have an abortion (yes, please), gay rights, etc., etc.  Even “reality” shows have gotten bad.

My wife and I were trying to watch a show hosted by a well-known chef who travels the globe in search of various foods to eat.  In one episode, he went to Singapore, hooked up with a friend, and spent “24 hours” trying various foods.  That’s fine, but what really amazed me was how often either his or his friend’s dialogue had to be bleeped out because he obviously chose to use a swear word; the F-bomb.  What was truly uncanny though was when he used the Name of Jesus as a swear word.  Well, that did not need to be bleeped out apparently!

This is the nature of the beast when it comes to reality shows.  People are encouraged to speak as they would normally speak, so at home, we are entertained by a rotating series of beeps when someone in the show (often) uses a swear word like the F-bomb to express him or herself.

All this is to say that people are still trying to say there is no connection between violent TV, movies, and games and the way people (especially younger people) act in public.  We have Quentin Tarantino refusing to answer a question about violence in his movies.  We have Hollywood executives getting off easy for all the violence that is portrayed in the movies they produce throughout the year.

If there is a connection between smoking and young people to the point that there has been a strong push to eliminate smoking and smoking products from TV, movies, and games, does it not stand to reason that this same truth could be in effect when it comes to violence in TV, movies, and games?  How hard is it to make the connection?  It is either both or none.  Either smoking and smoking products in TV, movies, and games has no effect on young people with respect to smoking or it does.  Studies have shown that it does have an impact.

If this is true, then obviously, the level and amount of repetitive violence in TV, movies, and games also impacts the minds of young people (and probably mentally unstable people of all ages).

I was watching a clip from Piers Morgan and Ben Shapiro and aside from Morgan’s normal sense of snobbery and constant interrupting, Sharpiro won the debate.  He was level-headed and presented facts, which Morgan tried (unsuccessfully) to counter.

The trouble with Morgan is that he wants AR-15s banned, but as Shapiro pointedly asked why doesn’t he (Morgan) want pistols banned too because they do the lion’s share of killing, not AR-15s.  Morgan didn’t really have an answer except to go back to the fact that some of the recent spate of killings involved AR-15s.

As Shapiro pointed out, murders happen all the time in areas like Chicago and kids die on a daily basis because of pistols.  While Morgan said he “does” care about those kids, he didn’t really provide any evidence of that.  His reasoning – such as it is – is nonsensical.

What people do not realize is that even though we have history as our greatest witness, we consistently ignore the ramifications of it.  When Shapiro brought up the various regimes of history and the tyranny they brought to bear on the people over which they ruled (subjugated), Morgan was quick to sarcastically ask whether Shapiro believed that the United States (federal) government would become tyrannical.  Shapiro pointed out that maybe not in ten or fifty years but the possibility exists that it could happen.

My question is why is this so difficult for Morgan to believe?  He himself has stated that the Constitution is inherently flawed.  There is no perfect government and when people get into powerful positions, it is often not long before the power they feel begins its corruptible influence.  Why is it difficult to believe that our own government could eventually turn on its citizens?  This is especially true if we consider the Bible and what it has to say on the subject of the world becoming one, held in sway by one powerful, charismatic figure who will rule with absolute power and authority one day.

Life has changed and it has changed drastically.  It’s not like the days of “The Dick Van Dyke Show” anymore.  Those days were not artificially created for television.  They were a fairly accurate depiction of what society was like then.  Not only are those days gone forever, but we are approaching times when rights of the average (law-abiding) citizen will be further eroded until we are left with virtually nothing.

That is happening now and as I have said on so many occasions, with Mr. Obama in office – a man who is seen as “black,” and certainly a minority, who is “fireproof” – the elite will push that much faster in order to gain what they wish to gain.

We can laugh sardonically at that idea, as Piers Morgan does, but the truth is that all the statistics in the world prove that more gun control is not the answer.  It simply will not change society for the better, yet in spite of this, politicians and others will continue to move in that direction because it will appear that they are doing something good, even though the end result of what they are doing will only affect law-abiding citizens.  Those with mental problems and certainly criminals themselves will not be affected anymore than they are now with all the anti-gun laws that currently exist.

People continue to blame guns as if removing them would make society safe.  In previous articles, I’ve presented actual facts on murders by knives, by hammers and clubs, and even by fists.  The numbers related to these modes of murder completely outweigh those perpetrated by guns.

I see no one trying to make it more difficult to buy hammers or knives.  I see no one who is saying that laws should be enacted so that people cannot use their fists in a way that may harm someone (although murder in general is already against the law regardless of the mode used).

Because of drunk drivers, roughly 12,000 people died in 2011.  Is it anymore difficult to obtain a car because of it?  Nope.  In fact, there are already too many cases of repeat offenders who have been arrested, released, arrested, released, and arrested and released because of drunk driving.

Prohibition didn’t eliminate drinking.  It did not eradicate drunks.  In made the mafia rich and the average citizen found ways to imbibe their favorite prohibited beverage.  Yet, the Left continues to want to make it tougher and tougher for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns and ammo when in point of fact, no amount of new laws or restrictions will make it one bit tougher for the criminal to obtain either guns or ammo.

It’s interesting, but during the Ben Shapiro/Piers Morgan debate, Morgan referred to President Reagan, who is one who signed a letter along with Presidents Ford and Carter, recommending the banning of “assault” weapons.  Reagan also said and did a number of things relative to gun control.  After an attempt on his life had been made by John Hinckley, Reagan said this:

“You won’t get gun-control by disarming law-abiding citizens.  There’s only one way to get real gun-control; disarm the thugs and criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time.  It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun-controllers.  I happen to know this from personal experience.”

I hate to keep repeating myself but as long as the Left continues to repeat themselves, it’s necessary.  Since the Sandy Hook situation, there have been a number of situations in which guns were used to actually save lives, but you won’t hear about them on the news because that info doesn’t sync with the media’s agenda.  They only want to portray guns as being used for massacring people.  If they repeat that enough times, they believe people will be brainwashed into thinking that it must be true.  Therefore, if guns are removed from society (in steps), then society will become safer.  It has never happened and history proves it, but what does history know anyway?

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Shadow Government, Sharia Law, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: anti-gunner piers morgan, piers morgan vs. ben shapiro, shows of yesterday, the lies anti-gunners tell.