Why So Many People Have No Common Sense - People who watch too much TV lose touch with reality

I've had an experience the other day that has shown me, once again, that too many people have lost touch with reality, have little common sense and watch way too much TV...

Regular readers of my blog will know that I have worked in TV and broadcasting for 30+ years. Because of this experience, I have no TV in my house. I threw it away ten years ago. Most professional TV people I know have no TV in their house. All professional TV people I know never watch any TV.


I know TV is bad for you. I think watching any TV at all is watching too much TV. Sometimes readers will argue this point with me. But I've never once had a professional educator nor professional in the mass media or TV business argue this point with me. I only get mails (and I get lots of them) from professionals who strongly agree. I get mails that strongly disagree from TV and game fans trying to defend their altar.


The ones who think TV is good or can be useful are, of course, fans of TV. I got one of these mails the other day. I had written, "I hate computer games of all kinds... (They are a) waste of time like TV." To which a reader replied:


Actually, computer games are proven to increase not only cognitive abilities, but even eye-hand coordination.

Then again, television is also a very useful tool, that can be used to widen experience far beyond what normal people have available. It's very politically correct to decry such things, but fallacy.

This is patent nonsense. Calling it "politically correct" is supposed to belittle criticism of TV. In recent years, calling something "politically correct" has become the easy way for people who cannot support their arguments with facts or common sense to escape rational, logical discourse. Then the writer then goes on to offer no evidence to support his claims besides saying it is "fallacy."


He also mentions that "computer games are proven to increase not only cognitive abilities, but even eye-hand coordination"!? Madness! What? What kind of a fool actually believes this (excepting if he is a fat and over-weight American couch-potato or game salesman?) 


First off, what are "cognitive abilities?"


From Sharpbrains.com:


What is cognition? Cognition has to do with how a per­son under­stands and acts in the world. It is a set of abilities, skills or processes that are part of nearly every human action.


Catch that? "How a person understands and acts in the world." It isn't rocket science to figure out that what goes on in a hand-held game like a DS or Playstation has little to do with the real world. And the part about eye-hand coordination is also nonsense. Perhaps it would be good for eye hand coordination if you wanted to shoot people in Pakistan with hell-fire missiles while you sit from your office in Quantico, Virginia.


I wonder how well, say, a guy who can score and continually win at a game console baseball software would do with his "eye-hand" coordination catching a ball or hitting one with a bat in the real world? Not too well, I suppose.


It isn't rocket science, like I said. It doesn't require genius to figure out that that sort of thinking is nonsense.


Playing computer games is only good for "cognitive abilities" and "eye-hand" coordination confined to the computer world.

TV and computer games are a vicarious experience; their relation to real world experiences are negligible.


The other part of what the reader wrote that is completely absurd is the that games "are proven" to "increase ... abilities." Proven by whom? By research funded by game manufacturers? That's like using research funded by tobacco companies to prove that cigarette smoking isn't bad for you too! And, yes, Virginia, there are still many of those! In a 2006 article on the Independent UK, research showed the benefits of cigarette smoking!


Sure! There are benefits to smoking and some good things about cigarettes! Just like there are some good things to playing computer games... But the negatives by far massively outweigh the positives and to think otherwise is just plain foolish.


You don't, though, need hundred million dollar research to stop for a moment and use some common sense to see that inhaling the smoke from burning matter can't be natural or good for you, just as anyone with a lick of common sense could see that our children becoming zombies playing computer games can't be good either.


The lowering of academic scores in American school since the 1950s speaks for itself. The startling and escalating decline in the last ten years is startling.


Sure, but don't worry. Research shows that TV and computer games are good for you.... 


Sure, research funded by big corporations show you that, regardless of what your common sense tells you.

(PS: I know some defender of games will say this, so let me cut them off at the pass: When I say, "game" I mean the typical hand-held game kids play or the average home Playstation or like system. I am NOT talking about some multi-million dollar simulator that are used for pilot training or such. As Deleuze and Guattari write, "Simulation does not replace reality, it appropriates reality. It can't replace it." I also doubt that the average home has a million dollar simulator in the living room.)

------

The Plug-In Drug (Part 2)

(This article first appeared on Lew Rockwell in Feb. 2008. Part 1 is here)

".. although you won't appear on any public wanted lists, the American Government will consider you a dangerous enemy if you try to start a movement for people to throw their television sets away... television is the Government's way to keep people subdued, illiterate and brainwashed and there won't be any thanks from them if you try to change it."

~ Andrew Taylor, UK, IT Journalist

".. Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"

~ From Satire X of the Roman poet Juvenal, late 1st and early 2nd century CE

Removing the TV from the home is the only hope for people who still believe that living in a free society is possible. This is the critical issue when any discussing of the negative effects of television are to be considered. My previous article The Plug-In Drug appeared on this particular website as it is a place where I consider "free-thinking people" to gather. Nevertheless some readers criticized it using very curious and illogical arguments.

If you believe that our entire current political and social debacle cannot be attributed to the wide infiltration of television in all aspects of our lives, then you are truly blind. Television is the modern-day opiate of the masses, used by our rulers to provide us with the bread and circuses that keep our minds off the critical issues at hand.

Serious thought must be given towards television; how it came about, by whom, and for what purpose? Before anyone can make a fair and honest assessment as to the question "Do the benefits of television outweigh the negative effects for the average person or family as a whole," once again, I strongly say, absolutely and definitely they do not. Television is the modern day disease that is ruining our minds, bodies, family, and society as a whole. It is a monstrously gross understatement to say that there is no good argument that shows that the benefits of television outweigh the negative effects on a person, family, or society.

Our societies' political and social order has become corrupted by many things. But undoubtedly the main cause and culprit is television. Television is a root cause of crime, divorce, decaying morality, and poor health; and, even worse than public schooling, it is the harbinger of a poor education. I make the last claim because most people start their children's indoctrination through the use of television four to five years before public schooling ever does.

Before I continue to attempt to get people to recognize that they've been brainwashed and to make the effort destroy the television before it destroys them, I think a brief on the facts on how television came about is in order: Television was invented in the 1920's. Yet it sat unused for nearly thirty years. It wasn't until the end of World War II that TV became prevalent in our homes. When the war ended we had hundreds of thousands of soldiers coming back home to a country where there weren't enough jobs for them. Our women were no longer needed, nor wanted, in the factories making weapons. Readers of this site know that war cannot actually bring a country out of an economic depression. The government of the USA, along with major corporations, needed to keep their profits expanding; they needed a marketplace for goods. So how did they create one? They did it by dusting off the television and cheaply putting this technology into American homes. By doing this, they could control the message much better than radio or print ever did and create a need where one didn't exist before. Television is the child of advertising. A dumbed down populace is the child of television.

In darkened rooms, with all eyes fixated on a screen, conversation frowned upon, and outside noise muffled, people were made to relax, and then mesmerized. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American homes were shown the new lawnmower, the new kitchen gadgets, the new car, and the new tract housing all at the same time. Through the use of television, our government and major corporations could control what was shown to the public. Diversity was discouraged; not only was diversity in thought discouraged, but also diversity in the marketplace has been suppressed by television. How many small mom & pop stores can afford to spend several hundred thousands of dollars on a TV ad? This situation continued and has led us to where we are today: In a society of Clear Channels and Fox TV's that are run by major corporations in bed with the central government through advertising for the sole purpose of controlling the message. And that message is meant to destroy the free market spirit, dampen free thought among the people, and crush rebellion.

To get off the point for just a moment, I believe that, in many ways, the so-called hollowing out of the American economy can also be attributed to television. The government and major corporations used television from the 1950's to the present to sell Americans products that we don't really need. They sold us an image and the idea that we had to "Keep up with the Joneses." Products that are truly needed for survival, such as basic foods, milk, eggs, bread, rice, meat, vegetables, etc., do not usually need advertising as, since they are needed for survival, they will be searched out by people.

In turn, this process means that corporations and advertisers need to always find new markets; there are only so many new cars that can be sold here in America. Few people will buy a new car every year. This, in turn, makes a situation where the corporations need to leave this country and find new markets. It is in these new emerging markets where they can sell Coca-Cola and gadgets. The advertisers prime those markets by using television to show those people what the "American Dream" — or whatever they will call it there — looks like and that dream is a new car, a new house, and new gadgets....

The corporations then must move their factories out of the USA in order to retain profit margins by selling products at lower prices in those emerging markets. This, in turn, allows for a higher profit margin on those same products that are sold back to the American consumer at a higher cost.

There are many arguments against television, so many that they cannot all be named here. So I will just point out a few.

Go back a few paragraphs to where I wrote: "In darkened rooms, with all eyes fixated on a screen, conversation frowned upon, and outside noise muffled, people were made to relax, and then mesmerized." Is there any reader who will disagree with this assessment on how television is generally viewed by the public? Doesn't everyone want silence when they watch their favorite TV show? Do they not relax and prepare for the so-called experience by readying their food, drinks and snacks? Many readers mentioned that they do not like to be interrupted while watching television. Is there anyone who can disagree with the situation concerning the watching of television that I have described above?

Consider this passage from Four Arguments For The Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander:

I asked ... prominent psychologists, partly famous for their work with hypnotism, if they could define the TV experience as hypnotic and, if so, what that meant. I described to each the concrete details of what goes on between viewer and television set: dark room, eyes still, body quiet, looking at light that is flickering different ways, sounds contained to narrow ranges and so on. Dr. Freda Morris (former professor of medical psychology at UCLA and author of several books on hypnosis) said, "It sounds like you are giving a course outline in hypnotic trance induction."

Dr. Ernest Hilgard, who directs Stanford University's research program in hypnosis and the author of the most widely used texts in the field (said), "Sitting quietly, with no sensory inputs aside from the screen, no orientating outside the television set is itself capable of getting people to set aside ordinary reality, allowing the substitution of some other reality the set may offer. You can get so imaginatively involved that alternates temporarily fade away. A hypnotist doesn't have to be interesting. He can use an ordinary voice, and if the effect is to quiet the person, he can invite them into a situation where they can follow his words or actions and then release their imagination along the lines he suggests. Then they drift into hypnosis."

Now, if anyone were really honest about this, how could they say that the typical watching of television doesn't fit the same conditions necessary for hypnosis? Of course, some people will scoff at the idea that hypnosis is anything but Quack Science; for those I suggest researching the Department of the Ministry of Truth as described in George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four or Soma as referred to in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. I suggest researching these two only if I can get those of you who still believe television is good or neutral to turn it off for a moment to bother to pick up and read a book.

The point of this is to show that television is a form of hypnosis. Hypnosis is described as "suspension of the critical factor" which expands on the idea of "increased suggestibility." A person who is hypnotized may accept statements as true that he or she would normally reject.

This may go to explain why Americans are often so ill-educated, uniformed, and uncaring about world events as well as events happening in their very own country since their main pipe of "knowledge" is an electrical device whose output is completely and totally controlled by the American government and its bed partners in the military/industrial complex. Since the fact that television is controlled by major corporations along with its prostitute Big Brother — and always will be, due to exorbitant costs — it should be self-evident that television is not neutral, is not a tool for the users, and, therefore, it cannot ever be reformed.

Do not confuse my message here. I am not an anti-capitalist. Capitalism and the free market, with all its warts, is still the best system man has ever devised, but I don't need to be homogenized to enjoy living in a free society. In fact, homogenization of thought is the very antithesis to a free society.

As I stated in my article (and confirmed by Marie Winn's book The Plug-In Drug) it is not what is on television that is bad, it is not the content that is damaging; it is the mere act of watching television that is harmful. Television is a displacement of time. It is a huge waste of time — in a hypnotic state — that implants other people's messages into the viewer's head. This makes for a bizarre state of "reality" where frequent television viewers no longer have the common sense to understand our world and true reality. One such reader made an absurd claim that "There is no scientific proof that watching television is harmful." The reader then went on to explain that scientists had not proven that digital images moving at 44.1kHz were harmful to the human eye. I won't go into it too much, but this kind of thinking is just plain ridiculous. Here's why:

Television puts people in a trance and offers up an alternate reality. People waste time watching TV and when they do, the time spent is time lost that could have been used for gaining real-life experiences. As Gary North once wrote, "Time is the only non-renewable resource." The utter notion that radioactive waves (lights) — in an unnatural color spectrum — flashing on a screen in front of someone for four to six hours a day, or more, every day, and that not having any negative effects on the human body or mind is ridiculous on the face of it. It would only take a person who has lost touch with reality and common sense, or one who watches too much TV to even consider that this practice could not be doing something, quite possibly very harmful, to the human body.

It has been obvious to most of the religions of the world for tens of thousands of years that the rays of the sun and the moon have effects on the human body and our earth. In recent years, even Western Medicine has figured it out and started using different spectrum of lights to treat many human ailments such as depression and jaundiced infants. Anyone who has ever had athlete's foot knows that white socks (yes, even white socks have a beneficial effect on certain wavelengths of light) as well as sunlight are quick cures for the ailment. Plants do not grow well under artificial lights. Light affects everything we do. The light of the moon can alter the oceans and the weather, as does the sun. It is certain and common sense that they can alter human moods. It is, quite frankly, imbecilic to think that prolonged exposure to the colored lights radiated from a television set is not harmful.

Or do some people need a million-dollar government grant to prove to them that this is so?

It is common sense that this cannot be good. The ones who fail to see that are like the type of people who need research to decide if mother's milk is better and safer than formula (as if a Nestle chemical concoction could possibly be better than a mother's milk for that mother's very own flesh and blood). That is a lunatic proposition on the face of it.

Get my point? People who watch too much TV lose touch with common sense and reality and this, in turn, leads these people to believing the most absurd notions. Of course, since only someone like Nestle would finance silly research like this, as well as buying million dollar advertising on TV to even bring it up, the people who are in hypnosis will easily accept the new "reality" provided for them by way of suggestion from television.

I've been accused of being a hippie and riding the bandwagon of the seventies by saying that television is bad for children (and that playing classical music is better than rock). To that I would say that I hope you'd read my articles more carefully and understand that I am an industry insider working in the mass media for over thirty years. Generally speaking, I make, and always have made, music-related TV and radio programs. I use this as my "authority." I do not need a ten-million-dollar government university research grant to show me what I have come to know through real-life experiences; that TV is bad and that classical music is better for small children than, say, rock, or hip-hop. Some others also have said that, by riding the bandwagon, I use this as justification to be able to brag that my child is gifted. Once again, the evidence of the damage caused by too much television viewing rears its ugly head; a cursory reading of the article I wrote would show that I never wrote what I am accused of. The Plug-In Drug speaks at length about how TV watching can cause people's ability to read and comprehend to atrophy. As I wrote, "The fact of the matter is that I reckon that, because my son watches no TV, he is actually normal. He seems gifted if only because the other kids have been made dumb because of television..." As far as my child being "gifted" due to not watching TV, I'd like to add that Richard Buckminster Fuller once said "there is no such thing as genius, some children are less damaged than others."

Another intelligent reader interestingly pointed out that, "Kids should be protected from TV with the same determination (that) protects them from child molesters. Come to think of it, viewing TV may be a form of molestation: A stranger attempts to distort a child's concept of reality, obviously without physical touching, but with carefully practiced psychological 'strokes' instead."

The television is one of the main root causes of all our problems. Bring up any subject and it can be pointed out how the television directly relates to the situation. Whether we are talking about the presidential run of Ron Paul and his campaign being ignored, and therefore, out of sight and out of mind of average Boobus Americanus or the sick state of American foreign policy, the television is, at the very least, the accomplice to the crime. It is the television that is being used as the conduit for propaganda and falsehoods that are making our society a society of ill-educated dimwits who know nothing, nor do they care to know, about the problems at hand. The television is giving the public the explanations of the problems in 15-second sound bites that are paid for by major corporations and their prostitute Big Brother; explanations that are controlled and designed to give a certain message. It is a message that is not to be discussed, interrupted, or confused.

If you wish to live as a free human being and wish that happiness upon your children, then throw away your television today. The television cannot be reformed. Don't believe me, read the books I've recommended here, and, after you do, if you still think TV is fine, then I hope you enjoy your "show."

Still, if you think what I have written is wrong, then as is your right, please ignore my warnings. I seriously doubt that any intelligent person could read the books I've mentioned and come to the conclusion that I am wrong. In fact, after reading and judging for themselves, I think most people would say that I am not enough of a hard-core anti-TV advocate. I do not write these warnings for the average person; I write them in the hopes that there are still a great many wise people around. Unfortunately, I fear that the average person is a lost cause; the grip television has on their lives is too great to ever be broken.

The central government, the controllers of the opiate of the masses, will give the average person all the freedoms they could possibly want. Just sit in darkened rooms, relax, shut out any interference, and bring snacks along. The Bread and Circuses are on air all day, every day, for their enjoyment with just the push of a button. What more freedoms could the average person want… or deserve?

Reasons Why I Don't Believe in it Anymore - Be Skeptical of Everything You Hear

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan (1986)


I don't believe anything I see or hear on TV or radio and read in magazines anymore. Thirty plus years in mass media will make anyone very jaded and skeptical of everything coming out of the mouths of newscasters, scientists and politicians.

You wouldn't know it to read what I write about these days, but when I was a university student, I was pretty much a hard-core socialist, perhaps even a communist. Many people today are that way too but they don't like to use those words. Many people have been confused from decades of government run schooling.


I used to think - and I was taught in school - that the government is benevolent and needs to provide for people because the people are too useless and stupid to provide for themselves. That the people are stupid and useless is a pretty solid argument. But as I grew older, I began to learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch and for the government to take care of someone means that they are taking money from someone else.


You cannot keep taking money from the productive part of society and keep giving it to the unproductive part of society. We've been doing this for decades and not that's how we've gotten ourselves into the financial mess we're currently in.

Yep. Learn to live with it... Or marry a rich guy.

For example, the idea that the government should provide medical care, retirement care, or a so-called "free" education to everyone was some of the ideas that I believed were the duty of government. I believed those ideas because I went to government run public schooling. Of course, in government run schools, they will teach you that government run schooling is the best. That's what government's do. Is there a government in the world today that tells their public, "We are not the best government for you. Vote for another party!"


I clearly remember my 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Demuth sitting us in class and saying, "The United States has the best and the freest government in the world. And the proof of that is that we have had the same government for 200 years." That, my friends, isn't true. We've had the same political system for 200 years, but not the same government for 200 years. If longest running means that it is the best (typical American exceptionalism type of twisted thinking and logic) then I don't think America even comes close. The longest running government in the history of the world is probably Mao's China. Can anyone verify that for me? Not that it matters.

Cooler than any US president. How many of them can say "Warhol did me"? 

I knew, even then, that what my teachers were telling me wasn't true. That's one reason why I don't carte blanche believe anything that teachers say and am very skeptical about their pronouncements.


Then, in high school, I was president of the Science Class. We were told that the entire world was heading into a new Ice Age. Scientists were absolutely sure about that one too. There were even some scientists who said that we should put ash and salt on the polar ice caps to melt them so that would warm up the earth. That was 1975. I even wrote a 140 page thesis on it for my senior year. I was proud of that paper. But guess what? Even though the scare last a few more years, the Ice Age never happened. I became skeptical of science.


I became a devout disbeliever when, not trusting the media I worked in, I studied the subject. This from the Business and Media Institute of America:

"Many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895."

Yes. Big disasters sell advertising space and create revenues. Follow the money if you are ever wondering about the validity of anything you are told on the mass media.

I makes sense when you think about it; they can't even predict next week's weather with better than a 50% chance of accuracy, what kind of fool thinks they can predict the weather 50 years from now?


A few years later, I became old enough to vote. The very first time I had the chance to vote for president. I voted for Jimmy Carter because I didn't want war. Carter won the first time. I was happy. Then, during his tenure, inflation hit 22% and I was a university student. I realized that, at that rate, there would be no jobs even if I did graduate. Then when it seemed like he would lose re-election to Ronald Reagan, he committed a crime by sending the military into Iran to try to rescue hostages. The mission was called Operation Eagle Claw. It was a disaster. Two of the helicopters crashed into each other and eight US servicemen died. The mission was called off.

Ruins of a burnt out Hercules troop carrier helicopter in Iran April 1980.

This was the guy I voted for!? I voted for him because I didn't want war yet he was sending our military in on military adventures in countries that we weren't at war with? I have never voted again, even once, since then.


Political hypocrites! That's one more reason why I don't believe anything that politicians say and am very skeptical about their pronouncements.

After that I worked for a Republican congressman from California named Bob Largomarsino. I was his chief staff cameraman. Congressman Bob was a nice guy. I travelled around with him and took photos of him visiting old folk's homes and shaking hands with people or going to lunch with other people. In the two years I worked for him, I never once took any photos of him actually doing an work besides schmoozing people. Then Reagan invaded Grenada.

This photo was congressman Bob's favorite. Him sitting between Reagan and Bush I.

This photo hung in his office. I didn't take this one.

They said they were invading Grenada because US students were being held hostage. We'd find out later that this wasn't true at all and many nations, including our allies like Britain were angry and upset about the USA breaking international law.


"What's the land of the free doing invading tiny Caribbean nations?" I thought. That was one more reason why I don't believe anything that politicians say and am very skeptical about their pronouncements.


The litany of being told one thing but later on finding out that the facts are different from what we were told is long. I could never name them all. Rick Gee had a good short list of government lies: 

• Woodrow Wilson: won reelection with the prevaricating slogan, "He kept us out of the war." (Well, at least he did until after the election. Typical politician).
• Bush I: "Read my lips: no new taxes." (Well, maybe just a few).
• Ronald Reagan: knew nothing of the Iran-Contra shenanigans. (The Teflon President, indeed).
• Bill Clinton: "I experimented with marijuana a time or two and I didn’t like it, and didn’t inhale and never tried it again." (Do you know anyone who tried it but didn’t like it?)
• Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." ("Hey, I just sat there; she did all the relating herself.")
• Vince Foster committed suicide (how convenient).
• Richard Nixon: "I am not a crook." ("I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.")
• Marijuana has no medicinal benefits. (Tell Peter McWilliams’ survivors that).
• Children are being molested in a compound in Waco (to protect them, we must kill them).
• "Let’s Roll." Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania because heroic passengers thwarted the hijackers. (That the U.S. Air Force shot down Flight 93 seems far more likely).
• Bush II: We must take the war on terrorism to Afghanistan because the Taliban are harboring Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks (never mind that the U.S. government had already planned to invade Afghanistan long before 9/11).

There's all sorts of others too (for too many to name) but another short list: Flouride in the water is good for you; the IPCC (a government agency by the way) says there is a "consensus on Global Warming" but there isn't at all; Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons; the USA is spreading democracy; we are the "good guys;" the Japanese government saying that there was no problem at Fukushima; being the news director of a major Japanese broadcasting station and telling people that SARS, Bird flu and Swine flu were going to kill well over 250 million people worldwide (in total, until today, the three of them together have killed less than 300 people) the list goes on and on... 


These are all the million and one reasons why I am very skeptical about the pronouncements of teachers, scientists and politicians. 

Photoshop did wonders for the Man Made Global Warming movement...

That's why whenever I hear some politician say that they need to tax us to "help the children" or "save the environment" or "stop global climate change;" whenever I hear that we must go to war to stop some country from harming their people (as if bombing those same people is helpful) or that, in the worse case of an Orwellian nightmare, that "We must go to war in order to have peace" I am very skeptical.


I think, in this modern age, we need, we must to have a very strong and healthy skepticism about anything we hear, see or read on the mass media and that includes the Internet.


To do otherwise is to be foolish and completely ignore the historical record.

"Who are you to make such claims?" Complaints Bloggers (I) Receive

Sometimes in posts on this blog, I want to warn people with small children about dangerous diseases and illnesses that can be prevented easily. But sometimes people will write thing like, "Who are you to make such claims?" Or like in yesterday's post, a comment like this, "You seriously are comparing the worst nuclear disaster ever, to flu shots. (sic) You are a sick individual." 


I get lots of hate mail especially when I compare the risks of everyday occurrences with a media sensationalized story like Fukushima.


Challenges. Those are comments that I often get... Along with invective and personal insults. I try not to insult these people back. I like to think that the big electrode, God, Buddha, Zig Zag, what-have-you, in the sky put these people on the earth to teach me patience and how to be a better person.


Kindness to people works wonders!

My third daughter Wendy.  Some say she is handicapped. 
I say she is "just perfect!"

The most recent attacks I have received are because I have warned parents about serious problems, diseases and illnesses that can affect their children and I use Fukushima sensationalism as a comparison. People will grossly overreact to Fukushima, over a hundred miles away, but when serious causes of diseases (that get little media attention) are right under their noses, they are oblivious. 


To pat myself on the back (once again) as a mass media professional for over thirty years, I know what kind of BS goes on with news reporting and sensationalism as I have seen it from the inside. And, with four kids, I hope I know a bit about raising children. In fact, because of 4 kids, and one of them defeating a rare, deadly childhood disease - yet remaining handicapped for the rest of her life - I know more than most parents would ever want to know about raising kids and diseases like childhood cancer.


Many times I have pointed out that we cannot believe what we hear on the TV news and even so-called alternative media. The sensationalism sells advertising. That's the point and, in this day and age, it astounds me that most people today say they know that, but when it comes to something like Swine Flu or Fukushima, they seem to forget it. I am beginning to think that this selective response is due to some childhood phobias. Please refer to: Japan Nuclear Disaster Update & Strong Criticism of Western Media Sensationalism:

Actually, it astounds me that people do accept what what the media says as gospel truth. Don't forget that this is the very same media that told us 3 years ago that Swine Flu was going to kill more than 50 million people worldwide. This was the same media that told us that the USA had to invade Iraq because of Saddam's nooklar weapons. This was the same media that told us that SARS also was a killer virus that was going to wipe out entire populations. This was the same media that told us that Bird Flu was going to do the same.

As of today, worldwide  deaths from Swine Flu: 82. No nuclear weapons for Saddam (if he had any, do you really think we would have invaded Iraq?). Worldwide deaths from SARS: 100. Worldwide deaths from Bird Flu: 80. Don't even get me started on Man Made Global Warming!

Fact of the matter is that this is the same media who constantly exaggerates stories in order to sell advertising space to an extremely gullible public. When will people ever learn? If history is any example then the answer is: Never. They'll never learn.

Just wait a year or three for the next killer disease and we can start all over again.  

So, I write posts like the above pointing out problems with the media. Then I write articles alerting people to serious cancer and disease causing problems that, while not trendy, nor spectacularly newsworthy, are actually much more dangerous to our children than Fukushima will ever be. For one example of that, please refer to: 

Benzene in Cars! This Will Kill More People Than Fukushima Will 

Do not turn on A/C immediately as soon as you enter the car! Please open the windows after you enter your car and do not turn on the air-conditioning immediately.

According to research done, the car dashboard, sofa, air freshener emits Benzene, a cancer causing toxin (carcinogen - take note of the heated plastic smell in your car). In addition to causing cancer, it poisons your bones, causes anemia, and reduces white blood cells. Prolonged exposure will cause Leukemia, increasing the risk of cancer. may also cause miscarriage.

Acceptable Benzene levels indoors is 50 mg per sq. ft.. A car parked with windows closed will contain 400 - 800 mg of Benzene. If parked outdoors, under the sun, at temperature above 60 degrees F (15.5 C), the Benzene level goes up to 2000 - 4000 mg, 40 times the acceptable level... And the people inside the car will inevitably inhale an excess amount of the toxins.

It is recommended that you open the windows and doors to give time for the interior to air out before you enter. Benzene is a toxin that affects your kidney and liver, and it is very difficult for your body to expel this toxic stuff.

Or even my most recent post: 

Massive Cover-up! Worse Than Fukushima? Japan (and the World Over) Danger Levels at More Than 250 X Safe Limit!

Here are the facts: 300 death claims from flu vaccine. And Flu vaccines and neurological problems (caused Guillian Barre Syndrome in over 500 people). These two links show over 800 deaths and nerve damage vaccine related illnesses from, you guessed it, flu shots in one year alone! So far deaths or illness from Fukushima: Zero. 

Because of these posts, though, I will get attacked by people who ask me what right or authority I have to mention anything about diseases like this or children's cancer. Perhaps I am confused, but here is where I think my authority lies. My authority lies in my dearest third daughter whom I love deeply and will spend the rest of my life caring for and trying to help other parents (and their children) to prevent a similar struggle. 


So let me give my qualifications. First, my darling daughter, Wendy. One day, when she was age 1 1/2, she suddenly could not walk anymore. It was very strange. One day she was running around, the next day she couldn't stand. Soon after, she was diagnosed with 4th stage of a rare form of children's cancer called Rhabdomysarcoma. The doctors said it was incurable and her diagnosis was poor. She, like all children diagnosed with this horrible disease, was only expected to live for 2 ~ 6 months. 


As some may know, 4th stage cancer is the worst and final stages. The doctors at Setagaya Children's Hospital told me that she had virtually no chance. But I fought back. We fought back. 


I fired those doctors and hired the #1 expert in Japan (and top doctor in the world for this type of cancer - Dr. Mugishima at Nichidai hospital in Itabashi Tokyo) to handle my daughter. I fired the first group of doctors because they said, "Virtually zero chance." Dr. Mugishima gave us a 7% chance. Good enough. Better than zero. If your doctor doesn't think you have a chance, then that's not good. Fire them.


As part of the new doctor's regime, my then wife had to move into the hospital with my daughter 24/7 and that left me at home with two small girls to care for by myself and to try to hold down a job too! In spite of that, I took care of those two girls, and visited my daughter and wife in the hospital everyday religiously for over two years. 


The hospital cost me an impossible amount to pay. It was well over $10,000 a month every month for those 2 years (insurance doesn't pay for private hospitals and choices) and yet I paid it out of my pocket with no loans (Heck, I was a foreigner in Japan, my wife was in the hospital with my daughter, I had no assets, who's going to give me a loan? No one.) Yet, even with all this, I held down my job, paid for everything, cooked and cleaned and we came out victorious in a war with a deadly disease. 


When my daughters cancer was declared in full remission she was released from the hospital with one big caveat: Because of the treatment, her immune system was so damaged that she was not allowed to live with other children for six years because she would be catching all sorts of illness (from her sisters who played with other children at school who caught colds all the time). And those illnesses might kill her. 


After two years apart in the hospital and then another six years apart (at least) for the future, and me with a 11-year-old and a 9-year-old from a previous marriage, my wife and I decided it was best to get a divorce. In over 80% of all cases where a child in Japan gets cancer in Japan, the parents wind up in divorce. The pressure and stress are too great.


My daughter is now a high school student and looking forward to college. She is wheelchair bound for life but one of the happiest and most positive people you could ever hope to meet. I wish my other daughters were so happy!


Japan has a population of about 130 million people. Only about two or three children per year get this rare form of cancer. Nearly all of them do not survive. My daughter was only the second one in history of Japan, since it started cancer study with Germany and the USA in 1971, to do so.


These are my qualifications. I don't think they are so bad. 


UPDATE: People need to get their priorities straight. For example, did you know that: In the U.S., the odds of being killed by conventional medicine are almost 20 times (2,000%) greater than being killed in an automobile accident and almost 30 times (3,000%) greater than being killed by a gun. - From Confessions of a Drug Industry Insider.


*If any parents have such a challenge to deal with, please write to me and perhaps I can give some advice that may be helpful... I will try.

The Smartest (and Most Profitable) Business in Japan?

Today, you won't read about the company I am going to tell you about in magazines about business or the economy... You won't see news reports about them on TV shows about profitable businesses...Why? Well, as I've written many times before, the mass media is not interested in the truth. The mass media are only interested in filling the spaces between advertisements. That's all. 


Besides that, as a more than 30 year veteran of the mass media, I will tell you that the business of most in the mass media is: kissing businessmen's a*ses in the hopes of getting paid advertising for their media...


While the Internet and Social Media are all the rage today (Hint: when things are "popular", they are already out of fashion) there's still a few "traditional" business models that blow the rest away.


You won't read too much about this company in the mass media... Yet... But you will someday soon (the mass media are always a day late and a dollar short.) But this company blows the socks off of Groupon, Twitter and these other flash in the pan "Social Media" darlings of today. 


I'm talking about a publishing company. That's right, a publishing company. You know, printing press and all. Ink and paper....


Gutenberg would be blown away that a company, so many centuries later after his invention, could use his idea and still make a massively successful and profitable business in the age of the "Internet", in the age of "digital media."


Remember that it wasn't that long ago when people were saying that the Internet was going to destroy books and magazines? Ha! Laughable. Remember that it wasn't that long ago when they said that children today needed to know about the digital age in order to survive? Ha! Laughable. 


As it was 2,000 years ago and as it will be 2,000 years from now, the wealthy, the intelligentsia, the church and the movers, shakers and leaders of society will be people who read books. It has always been that way, it always will be. 


To think otherwise is just plain stupid.   


You know, I'm talking about one of the most profitable companies in Japan today...a publishing company that puts out old fashioned things like books and magazines... And, no, you can't get their products on Kindle.


I'm talking about Deagostini. Specifically Deagostini Japan...(If that link doesn't work, see here: http://deagostini.jp/)


Look out Internet businesses! Your business models are far too often a scam (or full of scams or SPAMS!) I think so because if your online business doesn't translate into something tangible or real-world, then you are headed for a fall.

Move over Groupon. I've railed on you over and over. But your business model is a joke. Who could possibly think that there would be a potential for a business that survives on SPAM? And you want a 60% sales commission!? Any good business model has to be good for all parties concerned... I don't see where you are getting any repeat customers in Japan... Maybe that's why your advertising here has disappeared. Gee! Does Groupon save me time from having to clip coupons? I never really had a problem with that before. Did you?


Twitter? You kidding me? I get more messages from Twitter that are SPAM than anything that I would ever want to read... And who needs to read idiotic nonsense on Twitter like, "How to get more followers on Twitter for only $5?"


Jeez! Who wants a bunch of "followers" who are people who know absolutely nothing about you nor do they care about you excepting that you are another digit in their masturbatory dreams of having a large "Twitter following"?

What a joke!


But old fashioned publisher Deagostini is no joke.


Deagostini sells a product that you can hold in your hand. Deagostini sells a product that kids can look forward to like Christmas or a birthday. Deagostini sells an "event" and a "limited edition" item... Once they are sold out, they are gone forever...


People in a consumer society have a history of going crazy over stuff like that.

X-RAY SPECS - ART-I-FICIAL

I know I'm artificial

But don't put the blame on me

I was reared with appliances 

In a consumer society 

When I put on my make-up 

The pretty little mask not me

That's the way a girl should be 

In a consumer society 

Deagostini Japan was founded in 1997. Because of the Internet, 1997, was called the beginning of the end for the traditional publishers and old school mass media. 


Deagostini's late entry into Japan was considered by many a joke. All the traditional big Japanese publishers laughed at this upstart foreign company and their ridiculous ideas for penetrating the already overly-saturated Japanese market... A market that was the most profitable with the highest literacy rate in the entire world...


They all said that Deagostini's products were cheap and poor quality. Then, Deagostini were the laughing stock of the Japanese publishing world. It was thought that there was no way a foreign company could come here and survive... 


That was then.


They aren't laughing anymore...Last year, of the top 15 publishing products sold in Japan, 13 of them were Deagostini products. I got the sales figures for Deagostini Japan yesterday. These figures are not public yet, but I have quite dependable inside information. 


Deagostini sales in Japan for 2010 (still not public information) were....are you sitting down? ¥28,400,000,000! That's ¥284 BILLION YEN! (about $370 Million USD!) Not only is that just incredible, but of those sales about 30% is pure profit of ¥842,000,000 (about $110 million dollars!)

Deagostini Japan's newest model... Think kids go crazy

for this stuff? Yes. They do! I know even adults who buy

these items... Heck! I've even bought them before!

How does Deagostini do it? It's so simple that when I first heard this idea, I slapped my head and thought, "Of course! Everyone knows this idea!"


How do they do it? Deagostini releases their products in a limited edition series. Like the Gundam advertisement above, they will release a quality model of a toy product (anime, war plane, car, ship, etc.) in a series of editions to be released once a month or so. There could be anywhere from 12 to 50 or 60 items in a series.


The first editions are really cheap. They get more expensive as the series progresses.


I bought a Zero Fighter for my son last Christmas at the book store because I couldn't believe how cheap it was and the quality was awesome for the price.

This model was high quality metal cast. It had moving parts.

It came with a huge book, and other great things that boys love... 

I think it was about $4.00.... 

Then, regularly, Deagostini releases the rest of the series in succession. As the issue go along, after a certain point, the items grow slightly in price.


If you are a real collector, you will buy each item until the series is over. Trust that there are tons of collectors with the disposable income to buy this stuff in Japan... Not just Japan! All over the western world. 


In, say, a twenty series set, by the sixth issue, Deagostini has broken even on the cost of production and logistics of the entire series and each item sale after the sixth issue is pure profit.


Get that? In the series, after the sixth issue or so, every item they sell is 100% pure profit.


It's an incredible success story and an incredible business model.


So much so that Deagostini is a model for future businesses in Japan and the world over... How many other businesses can claim that 30+ some percent of their sales is pure profit?


Certainly not Facebook or Twitter, which have no sales; nor Groupon who keeps doing the switcheroo on accounting methods.


Kids want something to hold in their hand and play with. The child's imagination is a powerful thing. Social Media offers no real tangible items....


Deagostini not only offers a product to hold and play with, they sell a dream and something to look forward to every month.


With Deagostini products, kids get Christmas not once a year, but 12 times a year... Adults too.


What's having something to look forward to everyday worth to the average person? Well, judging from Deagostini's Japan sales, it's worth well over $370 million US dollars and growing. 


Nah. No big deal, right? Let's talk about Social Media.... Yawn!


UPDATE: My friend Brenda chimes in:


Mike,

Not only that, they re-issue same series years down the line - all profit! I did some marketing for them in UK years ago.