Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxa!wetcw
From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: The Day After The Day
Message-ID: <367@pyuxa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Nov-83 14:11:02 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxa.367
Posted: Mon Nov 21 14:11:02 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Nov-83 03:32:05 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 39

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