drtennis’s whereIstand Blog

The question arises because of the unhealthy skinnyness, and concommittant eating disorders, of many women whose modelling we see on TV and in magazines. It would be great if the problem could be solved by individual self-discipline. But this will probably not occur, absent some deaths of models because of anorexia.

The reason self-discipline is unlikely is because of the big money involved, or at least the hope thereof. Compare this situation to the dangerous use of anabolic steroids by professional athletes. Again the lure of money!

Assuming weight restrictions by an external authority are needed, who would be in charge, the government or the industry? The former is incompetent and the latter is biased. What constitutes a model? Amateurs or professionals, and if the latter, how much income would be needed to qualify? Would we need height considerations along with weight? Could weight be changed for different photo shoots, as, for example, by the disgusting practice of bulemia?

The above are just a few of the problems in policing weight. The answer to the situation will have to come from the public. When we stop glorifying abnormal thinness in female models, the solution will be at hand. The irony is that men do not see these women as attractive.

                                    Dick Brooks

From my research, the writers seem to be paid very little. That is, in comparison with the remuneration of performers. While it is true that the audience pays to see the actors, hence their celebrity status and the big money, it can also be said that there would be no material to perform without the creativity of the writers.

When we ask if the strike is justified, what is the criterion for justification? If it is the amount of money involved, who is to determine what level is appropriate? 

Finally, the ultimate weapon of a trade union is the right to strike. It does not matter how outrageous the demands, the fundamental right exists. However, the court of public opinion has some influence on what the union is able to obtain.  The public has the power to boycott, or individually abstain from buying the product. In this field determined by the audience ratings.

I have no opinion as to whether the strike can be considered justified, but I am adamant on the legal right of the union to strike for whatever reason.

                                           Dick Brooks

In the golden age of television, this question would not have been asked. Each network had an outstanding news anchor, who brought the news items of the day. clear and without gimmicks. Today, the market for news telecasts is entirely different. We have access to cable channels, some of which bring news 24 hours per day.

The challenge is for TV stations and networks to attract a decent level of viewers. Ratings and ad revenues control decisions by the broadcast executives. These in turn are affected by what the viewers want to see.

Unfortunately, spectacular stories with strong visual impact, trump important news items. If it bleeds it leads. So it is not a question of whether television news should entertain, inexorably entertainment has crept into the newsroom as a weapon of survival.

Also adding to this trend is or thirst for trivial news and celebrity gossip. This stuff sells and the public is being catered to. I suspect that we will be getting less and less hard news as time goes on.

                                                    Dick Brooks

The issue question suggests the hope that reality television would be of higher quality. The reasoning was that the stories would be authentic rather than contrived or artificial. At this stage of the game, unfortunately the hope has not been realized.

In reality TV, the prime mover, as it is with any programming, is the capture and retention of the highest audience possible. In other words, ratings and revenue dictate decisions. When reality TV first emerged, it was a novelty, and curiosity alone generated a large audience. The factors of exotic locales, and suspense as to who would ultimately prevail after various trials, stimulated viewership.

As time wore on, and imitators began to over-saturate the field, ratings began to decline. Producers began to do what they always  do, regardless of the genre. That is they began to incorporate more sensationalism, more outrageous stunts, and of course, more vicarious sex.

The upshot is that reality has become more unreal, and the stunts have become more gross. How many viewers are continually attracted by people eating live insects? Ugh!

So, the impact of reality TV on overall programming quality, is nil. That is, sleezy.

                                          Dick Brooks

I’ll give my answer first,  and then follow with my reasoning. Not only should the military be allowed in schools, but they should be welcomed with open arms!!

First, students should have some understanding that they live in a free society because of the heroism of the military since the founding of the Republic. American history is not given the emphasis it should have in many curricula, and the presence of the military on campus might open the minds of some of the kids.

Second, the military embodies values that are missing in much of our culture. The military stresses discipline, obedience, committment, honor and service. Can we agree that these virtues are sorely lacking in our public high schools? While the military is in schools for recruitment purposes, it is likely that some of their virtues will be noticed by the students. For example, discipline is a big problem in our public schools. Would it not be helpful to have role models in uniform, show the students what real manliness and womanhood look like?

Finally, the armed forces have some attractive career opportunities to offer young people. It seems that it would be advantageous for high school students to learn about them person to person.

                                         Dick Brooks

This idea is based on a theory that is extremely racist at its core. The premise was, that kids in all black schools fared poorly in theit grades. Therefore, if we could take some black kids and assign them to white schools, they would improve. Whether by osmosis or association with smarter kids, was not fully explained.

By the same reasoning, assigning white kids to black schools, was supposed to create improvement in the learning level in formerly all black schools. Can you think of anything more demeaning to black children and their parents, than to practically label them as inferior.

This crazy theory was tried in Kansas City schools by judicial mandate. After spending millions of dollars, and forcing children to spend long hours on buses, the plan was recognized as a total failure.

A couple of generations ago, a high school in Harlem consistently performed among the best in New York City. Colin Powell is just one of the illustrious graduates. Dunbar High in Washington was considered tops academically, yet its students came from the poorest section of DC.

Let’s get away from this demoralizing emphasis on race, with its hidden suggestion of inferiority. No one said it better than Dr. King.

                                 Dick Brooks

The premise of the issue question seems to be that the problem can be solved, or at least ameliorated, by increasing the time for learning. If the reason for failure  is primarily systemic, the result will not change regardless of the length of the school day, or week, or even year.

The potential reasons for school failure are too many and too complex to be addressed in this post. Two important ones come to mind. The absence of parental concern for school, with a child not prepared to learn. The other is the dumbed down curriculum coupled with low expectations.

In failing public schools, pupils, teachers, and administrators are just going through the motions without commitment and passion. Such being the case, it is possible that lengthening the school day would make matters worse. The result could be even more tedium and apathy.

                                Dick Brooks

The choices that parents, with children in public schools, have now, are private schools and home schooling. The former may not be affordable and the latter may not be practical, because parents, financially, cannot stay at home to teach.

Thus, the only choice parents might have, to improve the quality of their children’s education, would be among various public schools, if that were permitted. Critics have many objections, most self-serving and without consideration of what’s best for the kids. One objection, is that it would foster competition among schools! Precisely so. Competition leads to improvement in other areas of our society, wouldn’t that same force be beneficial in public education? I believe it would.

If our public schools were showing excellent results, this discussion would not be necessary. The truth is, that far too many kids are leaving public schools, by graduation or dropping out, without even a rudimentary ability to read, write, or do simple arithmetic!

Choice of public schools may not be a panacea for the myriad ills of public education. But it seems like a step in the right direction by bringing parents into the decision process.

                              Dick Brooks

Politically, this type of action appears to the public as being very compassionate. However, the reverse is true, thanks to the law of unintended consequences.

A business firm, particularly a small one, cannot afford to hire someone at a wage that exceeds his productivity. So, many entry level workers will find that jobs are not available after the minimum wage is increased. They might have been glad to work for the former wage rate, but now that is illegal.

Some small companies may find it necessary to let workers go, thus swelling the ranks of the unemployed. Particularly vulnerable are teen-agers in their first job.

Finally, how can Washington determine one wage to apply country-wide? Wage levels are far different in Sioux Falls than in New York City. All of this minimum wage posturing is about the pompous in Congress trying to change the law of supply and demand.

                          Dick Brooks

Most businesses, when they are in the hiring process of a key worker, will do a thorough background check. This is plain common sense, since the new employee, by his/her actions and decisions, can have a significant impact onthe company’s revenue, assets, profits, and reputation.

Game officials are in the same situation, plus their impact can be greater than that of an average employee, because of their make or break decisions in the outcome of a game.

Fortunately, most sports have countervailing balances against rigged calls by a crooked official. Football is a good example. On a borderline decision, it is common for all 7 officials to confer, thus negating the power of one dishonest official. Not only are plays witnessed by thousands of fans, by instant replay diminishes the possibility of a dishonest call.

Other sports such as baseball and tennis are not good places for officials who want to cheat, for various reasons. The one sport where a dishonest official can make a difference, without being obvious, is in basketball. The calling of a personal foul, not always clear-cut, can alter the score and outcome of a game. Ironically, this did happen in the NBA a couple of years ago. Only through statistical analysis of a number of games, did the league become suspicious. A further irony, background checks might not have excluded this referee from being hired. He was approached by the Mob when his gambling debts got out of hand.

Let’s have background checks of all officials, to preserve what is left of the integrity of sports.

                                        Dick Brooks