An EXCELENT Opinion Piece on Values...

[Mariner]

I had a minute and found a reasonably good site re: costs of head injury accidents:

http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=441

The books I was lent specifically described the long-term costs of the most severely injured patients, i.e. worst cast scenarios, which were therefore more expensive than the average accident statistics reported in the caregiver website--but the point is the same: a safety net costs money, and asking others to pay your bills is the same thing as raising their taxes. So if you want lower taxes, either bank the money to cover the most expensive care you might ever need (several million dollars) or encourage all your friends to minimize their risk of serious injury.

I have no problem finding sources to support my contentions--it's just that it would have been much easier to quote the books if I still had them on my shelf than it is to hunt down the info on the internet.

BTW my Mariner tag line relates to my boating obsession, which is not (unfortunately) how I currently earn my living. Boaters take risks too, so I can appreciate the argument that we don't want to stop people from doing anything dangerous--it's a question of whether society perhaps has the right to do things like requiring life jackets or helmets, and how such decisions can/should be made.

Mariner.

 

[007]

I had a minute and found a reasonably good site re: costs of head injury accidents:

http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=441

The books I was lent specifically described the long-term costs of the most severely injured patients, i.e. worst cast scenarios, which were therefore more expensive than the average accident statistics reported in the caregiver website--but the point is the same: a safety net costs money, and asking others to pay your bills is the same thing as raising their taxes. So if you want lower taxes, either bank the money to cover the most expensive care you might ever need (several millions dollars) or encourage all your friends to minimize their risk of serious injury.

I have no problem finding sources to support my contentions--it's just that it would have been much easier to quote the books if I still had them on my shelf than it is to hunt down the infor on the internet.

BTW my Mariner tag line relates to my boating obsession, which is not (unfortunately) how I currently earn my living. Boaters take risks too, so i can appreciate the argument that we don't want to stop people from doing anything dangerous--it's a question of whether society perhaps has the right to do things like requiring life jackets or helmets, and how such decisions can/should be made.

Mariner.

C'moooooooon Mariner, there wasn't a darn thing in the stats on that website that indicated all the head trauma they were refering to was from a motorcycle accident. NONE! It talked about gunshot and the like, but no mention of motorcycle accident.

Point is, I can't argue it's safer to not wear a helmet, because there's too much data to prove otherwise. Helmets can save your life in the occurance of a crash. My choice to ride without one is mine and mine alone. I feel the government mandating to me I HAVE to wear one is infringing on my freedom. But if it makes you feel any better Mariner, I live in Reno, Nevada, and Nevada "HAS" a helmet law, so I have no choice, I wear one now.

 

[007]

Plus I've seen some wicked cool looking helmets

Well since I "HAVE" to wear one now, I found a really cool "DOT APPROVED" German Kraut style helmet.

 

[Mariner]

Yes, it's hard to find good national statistics on the web pertaining to a specific type of head injury, e.g. from motorcycles. Here's a 10 year old site that gives a sense of the cost reductions, however:

http://www.tf.org/tf/injuries/camchel4.html

As you can see, Medical's payments were basically cut in half after helmet law enactment. That's money right into taxpayer's wallets.

I skateboard, and often hate wearing my helmet, so I do understand where you're coming from. In fact, I often didn't wear it until two neurologists on my floor at the hospital told me I'd better. I raised the issue as a more general one concerning the balance between safety net, taxes, and laws.

Mariner.

 

[no1tovote4]

Well since I "HAVE" to wear one now, I found a really cool "DOT APPROVED" German Kraut style helmet.

A skid-pad? LOL

There is still no helmet law in CO. I personally wear one all the time. I am a volunteer firefighter, after you see about two of those accidents you start wearing seat belts and helmets all the time. I wouldn't dream of making a law to force others to make the same decision. Government nannyism at its best.

 

[Mariner]

Yeah, a skid pad : )

"Gov't nannyism"--people who don't wear helmets and then require expensive medical care that they don't pay for themselves are creating an opposite kind of gov't nannyism. A compassionate society can't leave accident victims by the side of the road or withold medical care from them--but someone has to pay for it. I'm not saying there's a right or wrong way to do it--just pointing out that the "get the gov't off my back" attitude can cut two ways.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

interesting piece on values as evident via TV choices:

Many Who Voted for 'Values' Still Like Their Television Sin
By BILL CARTER

Published: November 22, 2004

The results of the presidential election are still being parsed for what they say about the electorate's supposed closer embrace of traditional cultural values, but for the network television executives charged with finding programs that speak to tastes across the nation, one lesson is clear.

The supposed cultural divide is more like a cultural mind meld.

In interviews, representatives of the four big broadcast networks as well as Hollywood production studios said the nightly television ratings bore little relation to the message apparently sent by a significant percentage of voters.

The choices of viewers, whether in Los Angeles or Salt Lake City, New York or Birmingham, Ala., are remarkably similar. And that means the election will have little impact on which shows they decide to put on television, these executives say.

It is possible that some secondary characters on new television shows will exhibit strong religious beliefs, and an occasional plotline may examine the impact of faith on some characters' lives. But with "Desperate Housewives" and "C.S.I." leading the ratings, television shows are far more likely to keep pumping from the deep well of murder, mayhem and sexual transgression than seek diversion along the straight and narrow path.

"It's entertainment versus politics," said Steve McPherson, the president of ABC Entertainment. He dismissed the notion that program creators might be developing ideas specifically to chase voters who claimed moral values as an important issue in this election. "I have not heard an idea of that kind,'' Mr. McPherson said, "none whatsoever."

As much as network entertainment executives believe in taking note of trends, the rating figures from Nielsen Media Research remain their bible.

"They tell you more about creative values than anything that's in the political zeitgeist," said Dana Walden, the president of one of the largest production studios, Twentieth Century Fox Television, which produces shows like "The Simpsons" and "N.Y.P.D. Blue." "It's those values that are striking a chord with the American people," Ms. Walden said.

So if it is true that the public's electoral choices are a cry for more morally driven programming, the network executives ask, why are so many people, even in the markets surrounding the Bush bastions Atlanta and Salt Lake City, watching a sex-drenched television drama?

"Desperate Housewives" on ABC is the big new hit of the television season, ranked second over all in the country, behind only "C.S.I." on CBS. This satire of suburbia and modern relationships features, among other morally challenged characters, a married woman in her 30's having an affair with a high-school-age gardener, and has prompted several advertisers, including Lowe's, to pull their advertisements.

In the greater Atlanta market, reaching more than two million households, "Desperate Housewives" is the top-rated show. Nearly 58 percent of the voters in those counties voted for President Bush.

And in the Salt Lake City market, which takes in the whole state of Utah and parts of Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming, "Desperate Housewives" is fourth, after two editions of "C.S.I." and NBC's "E.R."; Mr. Bush rolled up 72.6 percent of the vote there.

"We say one thing and do another," said Kevin Reilly, the president of NBC Entertainment. [...]

 

[5stringJeff]

interesting piece on values as evident via TV choices:

Many Who Voted for 'Values' Still Like Their Television Sin
By BILL CARTER

Published: November 22, 2004

The results of the presidential election are still being parsed for what they say about the electorate's supposed closer embrace of traditional cultural values, but for the network television executives charged with finding programs that speak to tastes across the nation, one lesson is clear.

The supposed cultural divide is more like a cultural mind meld.

In interviews, representatives of the four big broadcast networks as well as Hollywood production studios said the nightly television ratings bore little relation to the message apparently sent by a significant percentage of voters.

The choices of viewers, whether in Los Angeles or Salt Lake City, New York or Birmingham, Ala., are remarkably similar. And that means the election will have little impact on which shows they decide to put on television, these executives say.

It is possible that some secondary characters on new television shows will exhibit strong religious beliefs, and an occasional plotline may examine the impact of faith on some characters' lives. But with "Desperate Housewives" and "C.S.I." leading the ratings, television shows are far more likely to keep pumping from the deep well of murder, mayhem and sexual transgression than seek diversion along the straight and narrow path.

"It's entertainment versus politics," said Steve McPherson, the president of ABC Entertainment. He dismissed the notion that program creators might be developing ideas specifically to chase voters who claimed moral values as an important issue in this election. "I have not heard an idea of that kind,'' Mr. McPherson said, "none whatsoever."

As much as network entertainment executives believe in taking note of trends, the rating figures from Nielsen Media Research remain their bible.

"They tell you more about creative values than anything that's in the political zeitgeist," said Dana Walden, the president of one of the largest production studios, Twentieth Century Fox Television, which produces shows like "The Simpsons" and "N.Y.P.D. Blue." "It's those values that are striking a chord with the American people," Ms. Walden said.

So if it is true that the public's electoral choices are a cry for more morally driven programming, the network executives ask, why are so many people, even in the markets surrounding the Bush bastions Atlanta and Salt Lake City, watching a sex-drenched television drama?

"Desperate Housewives" on ABC is the big new hit of the television season, ranked second over all in the country, behind only "C.S.I." on CBS. This satire of suburbia and modern relationships features, among other morally challenged characters, a married woman in her 30's having an affair with a high-school-age gardener, and has prompted several advertisers, including Lowe's, to pull their advertisements.

In the greater Atlanta market, reaching more than two million households, "Desperate Housewives" is the top-rated show. Nearly 58 percent of the voters in those counties voted for President Bush.

And in the Salt Lake City market, which takes in the whole state of Utah and parts of Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming, "Desperate Housewives" is fourth, after two editions of "C.S.I." and NBC's "E.R."; Mr. Bush rolled up 72.6 percent of the vote there.

"We say one thing and do another," said Kevin Reilly, the president of NBC Entertainment. [...]

Very interesting article. I still refuse to watch the show though!

 

[Mariner]

interest in watching any of these shows myself.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

Rich piece in today's Times, concerning our real vs. professed values:

t's beginning to look a lot like "Groundhog Day." Ever since 22 percent of the country's voters said on Nov. 2 that they cared most about "moral values," opportunistic ayatollahs on the right have been working overtime to inflate this nonmandate into a landslide by ginning up cultural controversies that might induce censorship by a compliant F.C.C. and, failing that, self-censorship by TV networks. Seizing on a single overhyped poll result, they exaggerate their clout, hoping to grab power over the culture.

The mainstream press, itself in love with the "moral values" story line and traumatized by the visual exaggerations of the red-blue map, is too cowed to challenge the likes of the American Family Association. So are politicians of both parties. It took a British publication, The Economist, to point out that the percentage of American voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern is actually down from 2000 (35 percent) and 1996 (40 percent).

...

Like the Janet Jackson video before it, the new N.F.L. sex tape was now being rebroadcast around the clock so we could revel incessantly in the shock of it all. "People were so outraged they had to see it 10 times," joked Aaron Brown of CNN, which was no slacker in filling that need in the marketplace. And yet when I spoke to an F.C.C. enforcement spokesman after more than two days of such replays, the agency had not yet received a single complaint about the spot's constant recycling on other TV shows, among them the highly rated talk show "The View," where Ms. Sheridan's bare back had been merrily paraded at the child-friendly hour of 11 a.m.

The hypocrisy embedded in this tale is becoming a national running gag. As in the Super Bowl brouhaha, in which the N.F.L. maintained it had no idea that MTV might produce a racy halftime show, the league has denied any prior inkling of the salaciousness on tap this time - even though the spot featured the actress playing the sluttiest character in prime time's most libidinous series and was shot with the full permission of one of the league's teams in its own locker room.

...

But there's another, more insidious game being played as well. The F.C.C. and the family values crusaders alike are cooking their numbers. The first empirical evidence was provided this month by Jeff Jarvis, a former TV Guide critic turned blogger. He had the ingenious idea of filing a Freedom of Information Act request to see the actual viewer complaints that drove the F.C.C. to threaten Fox and its affiliates with the largest indecency fine to date - $1.2 million for the sins of a now-defunct reality program called "Married by America." Though the F.C.C. had cited 159 public complaints in its legal case against Fox, the documents obtained by Mr. Jarvis showed that there were actually only 90 complaints, written by 23 individuals. Of those 23, all but 2 were identical repetitions of a form letter posted by the Parents Television Council. In other words, the total of actual, discrete complaints about "Married by America" was 3.

...

Those who cherish the First Amendment can only hope that the Traditional Values Coalition, OneMillionMoms.com, OneMillionDads .com and all the rest send every e-mail they can to the F.C.C. demanding punitive action against the stations that broadcast "Desperate Housewives." A "moral values" crusade that stands between a TV show this popular and its audience will quickly learn the limits of its power in a country where entertainment is god.

[By the way, I personally deplore the crassness of American TV as much as most of you here. Mariner]

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah, that's right, republicans=the taliban. Please don't post this crap in here, mariner.

 

[ajwps]

Note: Bottom of first column reads,
...John Kerry and the Mrs. live - along with loveable Ted Kennedy, who's...
and the next: ... Redefine values? Where to begin? Why not start by re-creating the place...Too long to fit it all in scanner. So sue me... :funnyface

Have to love this exchange from Hannity and Colmes last night with
Geraldine
Ferraro.

FERRARO: You know what? Just let me make one point. You were
talking about the map before. If indeed all those blue states all got
together and seceded from the union, think what would be left for
those red states, nothing.

HANNITY: It would be wonderful.

FERRARO: There would be no educational system.

HANNITY: You've got to go to my web site, Hannity.com. It's even
worse for you guys when you get to county by county.

FERRARO: You would have nothing. What would be left to you? I
mean, where is all of this talent in this country? It's on both sides,
the Northeast corridor.

Can one find a more elitist assessment than that? Is she not saying
that all the talented and educated people are on the coasts? Speaking
as one who lives in the deep red state of Georgia, I can guarantee we
have many educated people here who have earned advanced degrees or are
teaching at places like GA Tech, U of GA, Emory, U of VA, U of NC-
Chapel Hill, Vanderbilt, Auburn, ad infinitum.

Don't you just love it when people who preach open mindedness are so
narrow minded?

 

[DaTroof]

What I don't understand is how connected church & state are in the US. Abortion is something that I see as between the woman/couple and God. Yet the US govenment pretends that it's a "moral issue" when it sticks it's nose in the issue, while it's clearly a religious moral issue. I know plenty of otherwise "moral" women who have had abortions, and many have chosen to have children later on. Still not convinced ?! How about "blue label laws" ?! Why is it that I can't buy beer on Sunday mornings when I can do so every other morning of the week ?! I'm Jewish, Is it OK to drink on my day of rest but not on the church's ?! I guess it makes me a "liberal", but I would love to get the government out of my personal affairs. Even the playing field. If I'm not hurting anyone, then stay the %^$# off my back. Don't force your morals on me.

 

[ajwps]

What I don't understand is how connected church & state are in the US. Abortion is something that I see as between the woman/couple and God. Yet the US govenment pretends that it's a "moral issue" when it sticks it's nose in the issue, while it's clearly a religious moral issue. I know plenty of otherwise "moral" women who have had abortions, and many have chosen to have children later on. Still not convinced ?! How about "blue label laws" ?! Why is it that I can't buy beer on Sunday mornings when I can do so every other morning of the week ?! I'm Jewish, Is it OK to drink on my day of rest but not on the church's ?! I guess it makes me a "liberal", but I would love to get the government out of my personal affairs. Even the playing field. If I'm not hurting anyone, then stay the %^$# off my back. Don't force your morals on me.

Actually the US Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs Wade that the government cannot legislate morality. It didn't really say that abortion was legally approved but simply that abortion is left to the individual's conscience and morality. This bothers many people who KNOW when life begins in their own minds. Neither the New or Old Testatment even talk about abortion or the beginning of life in the human.

Anti-abortionists simply know that life begins at conception. They have received this knowledge from gamma rays from the planet Uranus.

The US Constitution never talked about legislating morality.

 

[Mariner]

Happy Turkey Day,

Yes, I agree that Frank Rich's rhetoric is a bit overheated, but his basic point is very, very sound: Do red state conservatives walk the walk or just talk the talk? Why do born again Christians have 50% more divorces than the average American? Why does Texas have the highest rate of teen births while Massachusetts has the lowest rate of divorce? To quote a professor who currently at Catholic U. in D.C., "For all the Bible Belt talk about family values, it is the people from Kerry's home state, along with their neighbors in the Northeast blue corridor, who actually live by these values." (W.V. D'Antonio, op-ed piece, Boston Globe, just after the election.)

Now, I agree with many people here about values, particularly regarding violence and sexuality in entertainment. Why Americans consider watching scenes of death fun to the extent they do is beyond me (we witness 10s of thousands of murders per year on TV). So how do we actually shift those values? How do we walk as we talk?

Also, this whole red state thing is a bit overblown. In a Princeton U. website somewhere there's supposed to be a "purple state" map that shows proportions accurately. I'll take a look and see if I can find it.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

Mariner.