We have Knology now with its incredible number of movies, old shows and nekkid channels, but we spend most of the time watching Turner Classic Movies, and re-runs, from Frasier, Cheers, Golden Girls, Everybody loves Raymond and I Love Lucy.

My favorites in the current shows include “The Good Wife,” a couple of the CSI shows, and “Law and Order SVU.” I also enjoy the PBS shows.

Obviously, Hollywood still makes some good movies, but I think overall those films of the ‘30s, ‘40s and ‘50s are better than some films made today..

I especially enjoyed the Greer Garson and Walter Pidgeon movies this week.

The so-called adult language movies of today are often thin on plots, and tend to get your attention by using the “F” word every other scene. When one television writer was interviewed some time ago about the use of such language, he said the language helped actors in reflecting the rage of their characters. The rage develops quicker, he said.when the language gets rougher.

Maybe so, but actors from the old days reflected a great deal of rage without the use of such language. Humphrey Bogart’s character  did not need adult language in “Sierra Madre” when he went into a murderous rage. He just went into a rage.

Nor did Richard Widmark’s character when he pushed the old lady in the wheelchair down the stairs in his first movie, “The Kiss of Death.”

I think today’s writers feel they connect better with the young viewers from 18 to 40, that magical range that advertisers want to reach. And they think using “the adult language” does the trick.

My favorite show in the current line-up is “The Good Wife” on CBS because I think it is extremely well written. These writers cover court procedures, lawyers and law firms in magnificent detail. This show has credibility, and I think credibility is vital. They use adult language, but they use it in an adult way.

Bob Sanders knows more about movies than any one, and I would like to read his take in comparing the “old adult language” with the new version.

* * *

In reference to the National Rifle Association’s skillful escape from guilt in connection with murderous rages, I suggest that the NRA make an effort to help mentally ill people who buy guns then kill people.

The NRA maintains that guns do not kill people; people do. OK, granted but the NRA could help by finding some way to contribute to the treatment of the mentally ill.

Now hear me out before you dismiss this as “liberal hogwash.” Alabama and other states have had to close mental facilities for the mentally ill because of budget cutbacks. Before the cutbacks, these facilities served as places for patients who needed support in taking their medicine; medicine in some cases that would prevent murderous rages.

Scoff if you will, but the NRA’s people could talk to doctors and mental health associations to find how it could help. Certainly the public might have a bit more respect for the NRA if it actually tried to help. They might be able to sell more guns this way.

The irony is that sales at gun stores reportedly increase after some of these shootings.

Gillis Morgan is an associate professor emeritus of journalism at Auburn University and an award-winning columnist. He can be reached at morgarg7@aol.com