As IF Times

link Doomsday clock set at 5 to midnight – CBS News.

We last visited this doomsday clock back in 2010. http://asiftimes.com/2010/01/14/thats-a-relief/  Over the many years since they first brought out this metaphorical measure of human extinction back in the early 1950’s, you’d think that the purveyors would have worn out the skin on their hands from all the wringing.

While it’s hard to argue with the reality that since the 1950’s when only two parties had access to the big kaboom, today there are many nations with nuclear bomb making capability.  No longer the exclusive domain of the Americans and the Soviets, the new players include the 17th century nations of North Korea and Pakistan.  Pakistan of course got the bomb because arch rival India got it years ago.  Nations that house their people in tin roofed shanties nevertheless have the capability to ixnay their neighbors if they were to go all Richard Sherman one day.  Iran has aspirations to join this exclusive circle as well, so the players keep a-comin’.   Despite this arms buildup, it’s unlikely that any of them would be dumb enough to fire the first shot, since that would likely mean a large mushroom shaped cloud would in turn be directed their way in minutes not days.

The stated reason for the metaphorical clock is to warn against a “civilization threatening catastrophe” which in the day meant an atomic bomb event.  If you ask me, the word “civilization” strictly speaking  doesn’t just mean people in general, as those living in Syria, the Sudan or North Korea will attest.  There is no civilization if people are oppressed, enslaved, starved and unable to enact free will.  There is just a large majority being pushed around by a very small minority.

In nations such as those, there is no long history of democratic free will or the establishment of ‘civilized’ protocols for its citizens.  Education and information flow is both low and controlled, so people can be more easily repressed.   Instead, their histories are marked by autocratic rulers who determined the rules of society as they saw fit to enact.  Typically, violence is the preferred method of enforcement.  Life is miserable anyway, so nuclear angst is probably low.

Therefore when they talk about ‘civilization ending catastrophe’, they really mean western civilization, because in parts of the world where despotism prevails, no one spends their days worrying about anything other than getting through their day alive and fed.  However, even in the ‘enlightened’ western world, the angst of imminent doomsday, nuclear or otherwise, is a bit down the list of concerns for the average Joe, perhaps adjacent to how they get the caramel in a Caramilk bar.

Unless of course you are in the professional doomsday business.  While nuclear warfare may exist as a theoretical possibility, that dynamic has evolved into a circular firing squad, so the chances of an event are slim.  Over the years, numerous other imminent world ending scenarios have had their turn in the spotlight as the pending disaster du jour.   Remember global overpopulation?  Bioterrorism?  Today, there is  the possibility of the earth colliding with a wayward asteroid; massive volcanic eruption; or solar flares.  Let’s not rule out alien invasion.  Of course we can’t forget the current imminent disaster headliner; climate change.

I think that the doomsday crowd should pay some attention to the real civilization ending event(s) that are going on right now.  This dynamic has been going on forever and is as prevalent now as it has ever been.  As mentioned above, this is where the small minority are pushing around and enslaving the large majority.   It’s the dumb preying on the dumber.

link Violence In Movies — Who Will Stand Behind Harvey Weinstein?.

Often we will hear of an act of violence or crime committed in real life which will then be blamed on inspiration derived from  a movie.  Real life experience tells us that there are weak minds out there that will emulate almost anything that they see on TV or the big screen. The Jackass franchise is exhibit ‘A’. In defense of the ‘art’ however, the creators will claim that the depictions are only reflective of real life scenarios, therefore derivation, not causation.

This great fallacy exists even to this day despite ample evidence to the contrary.  Anybody who still thinks media has no knock-on effect on culture is probably a Japanese soldier resolutely hiding in the Philippine rainforest.

Sharp people in the entertainment business know that catering to the lowest and darkest elements of the human psyche is infinitely more lucrative than uplifting and sunny themed shows.   Literary history is rife with classic stories anchored in gruesome murders, beheadings and dismemberment, from Shakespeare to Beowulf to Poe.

In our time, Harvey Weinstein is one of the sharpest and most successful at catering to that appetite.  Much of his entire legacy and substantial fortune has been made off of such classics as Rambo, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill (vol. 1 and 2) and Reservoir Dogs.  Anyone familiar with such films knows that violence, especially glorified and stylized gun violence are major elements of the plots.  Certainly he’s not alone since for example the exaggerated violence depicted in the whole Zombie franchise and horror film genre also compete successfully for audience money.  But apparently, he’s had an epiphany on violence and guns and now doesn’t think that anyone should have guns.  This is as if Colonel Sanders were to announce that all of his restaurants would now be vegan. It’s as if Russ Meyers came out against breast implants.  It’s the same as Hugh Hefner preaching chastity or Michael Moore speaking out against forks.

Guns have been around a lot longer than Weinstein has  been glorifying their use.  In fact, the ability for citizens in the U.S. to possess firearms has a specific utility which is famously enshrined in their constitution.   His new found opposition to guns after amassing fortune and fame from depictions of their use is perhaps a tad disingenuous.  Many of the Hollywood action star set have made their marks as a result of  portraying  gun toting heroes, including noted peacenik Matt Damon.  In fact any promotional trailer for this season’s TV offerings invariably include someone holding a gun.  Moreover, for Weinstein to impose his views on gun ownership upon the entire nation and to attempt altering a fundamental constitutional mandate is particularly galling since depictions of glorified gun violence has been such a staple of his career.

It’s fine if Weintstein’s new direction in film production moves away from gun violence and towards dramas in which the plots surround people behaving badly and calling each other rude names.  Let’s see how that sells commercially.  Oh wait, we already have that model.  MSNBC.