wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (11/21/83)
Well, I watched "The Day After" and it didn't change my outlook on on the motives for showing it. First, as for it's ranking as strictly a movie, Ho Hum. Second, as to it's acting, Ho Hum. Now that we've got that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the argument. I've noticed that many of the supporters of the movie have sworn up and down that it is not a political statement. Horsepukey. The little insertions by the network during the film (the statements by the network bigwigs - not the disclaimers for the children) were about as political as they could be without marching the Green Peace banner across the screen. The most interesting part of the evening was the discussion after the film. Carl Sagan was his usual ethereal self ( is he an astronemer or astroleger(sp)?). The two former Secretaries of whatever were interesting enough in that they still talked in overkill terms. Bill Buckley must have been brought aboard to counteract Sagan as he didn't have much to say either. The former General Whats-his-name spoke in glowing terms about strategy , but brought on a bad case of the nods as he became more technical. The only person who made any sense was the philosopher (his name escapes me). This gentleman seemed to be saying that both approaches to the nuclear problem were full of holes and that we should perhaps go back to the drawing board and come up with some better ideas. Nuclear disarmament is a much more complicated problem than the simple solutions offered by the antis. On the other hand, to stick to the current deterent position only further compounds the problem. So, what did it all mean? What it meant was that the deterent crowd is still the deterent crowd, the anti crowd is still the anti crowd, and a hell of a lot of people who could care less, didn't even watch the movie. So, there you have it from my point of view. Would anyone care to help me start up a new movement to find out how to defuse world tensions thus allowing us to deactivate the nuclear arsenals? A Dreamer at Heart T. C. Wheeler pyuxa!wetcw
cas@cvl.UUCP (Cliff Shaffer) (11/22/83)
> So, there you have it from my point > of view. Would anyone care to help me start up a new movement > to find out how to defuse world tensions thus allowing us to > deactivate the nuclear arsenals? > > A Dreamer at Heart > T. C. Wheeler > pyuxa!wetcw YEAH! I would call it the reduce-tension-by-reducing-demand-for- critical-resources-by-reducing-population-pressure movement (well, maybe a more catchy title would be appropriate). Its for people who want to worry about the cause, not the effect. Cliff Shaffer {seismo,we13,mcnc}!rlgvax!cvl!cas