CNN Touts Slam of '80s 'Mythology' Promoting 'Militarism,' 'Greed'
Jay Kernis, senior producer of CNN's In the Arena program, promoted liberal writer David Sirota's thesis that "the mythology of the 1980s still defines our thinking on everything from militarism, to greed, to race relations." Sirota bashed 80s cultural touchstones such as The A Team and Ghostbusters for being "hideously militaristic" and the "ugliness of [their] anti-government message."
Kernis interviewed the Huffington Post contributor about his new book, "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live in Now—Our Culture, Our Politics, Our Everything" in an item on his program's blog on CNN.com on Monday. The producer first asked about the writer's hypothesis that "the political and cultural references from the 1980s have not only become cool again, but may be a way to explain our present-day issues and conflicts, and even influencing our thinking today."
Sirota, who once attacked Glenn Beck as a "right wing political terrorist" and labeled opponents of President Obama "a bunch of psychopaths," cited an apparent connection with the current Tea Party movement:
Consider, for instance, the Tea Party – a revival of what the New York Times called "modern Boston Tea Party" revolts against taxes on the eve of the 1980s. Notably, today's iteration of this uprising regularly laces its rhetoric with revivalist paeans to the Eisenhower Era. Summarizing the sentiment, one Tea Partier said: "Things we had in the fifties were better."
This rhetoric has resonated because for many, it no longer stirs memories of the actual 1950s of Jim Crow laws, gender inequality and religious bigotry. Instead, it evokes the sanitized idea of "The Fifties" that was originally created in the 1980s through movies like Back to the Future, Stand By Me and Hoosiers, television shows like Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley, and rockabilly greaser bands like the Stray Cats.
Same thing for the Tea Party's use of red-baiting language that suggests the individual is more important than the common good. Though the Cold War ended years ago and though Ayn Rand is long dead, the bromides elicit Red Dawn fears and Michael Jordan dreams from a generation that grew up being taught to see ourselves as both Soviet-oppressed Wolverines and the next superstars singularly soaring to MVP awards – as long as we will ourselves to just do it.
One glaring weakness in his cultural examples is the fact that Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley are not 80s programs. They began in the mid-1970s and were past their prime when they ended their runs in the early 80s (the famous phrase "jump the shark" comes from a later-season Happy Days episode). Also, Sirota would have us believe that Tea Partiers regularly harken back to 50s (which, of course, he cast in the worst light possible) based on an extrapolation from his one anecdote.
The Huffington Post writer then held up Michael J. Fox and his characters in Back to the Future and Family Ties as influences: "Those two characters perfectly represent exactly how the 1980s was revising and reimagining contemporary American history on ideological lines. Think about it: Marty McFly was a suburban teen fleeing the cartoonized dangers of modern life...into an idyllic Fifties of unity and safety. Alex P. Keaton, by contrast, spends his life lambasting his parents Sixties idealism." However, as the MRC's recent report "Rewriting Reagan" pointed out, Family Ties actually worked in anti-Reagan jokes into the dialogue.
In the process of singling out Fox, Sirota returned to his 50s talking point:
This "Back to the Future"-versus-"Family Ties" war between the 1980s version of "The Fifties" (supposedly 100% unified, universally happy, optimistic, safe, etc.) and the 1980s version of "The Sixties" (supposedly 100% violent, chaotic, overly idealistic, etc.) defines our politics today.
We are, for instance, supposed to forget that America in the actual 1950s was basically an apartheid state, and also had a 90% top tax bracket. Likewise, we are supposed to forget that the 1960s saw great progress on civil rights and that liberals in the 1960s ultimately helped end the Vietnam War.
The dominant political narrative today – whether through the Tea Party or through criticisms of President Obama as a supposed "socialist" – tells us that if we only go back to "The Fifties" (ie. the 1980s-revised memory of the 1950s) and shun "The Sixties" (ie. the 1980s-revised memories of the 1960s) then our problems will be solved. It's the replay of a bad 1980s movie – but it keeps playing.
When Kernis asked about the journalist's thesis about The A-Team's supposed influence on "how a generation views our government," the left-of-center narrative reached a new level:
It's one of the single-most anti-government parables of the modern age. From the beginning, we are told that the government wrongly accused and incarcerated these heroes; that the government is too inept to keep them incarcerated; that the A-Team is solving societal problems that the government refuses to solve; that the average person can find the A-Team but that the government can't; and that the government is actually trying to stop the A-Team from its good samaritan work.
Sounds familiar, right? Of course it does – this is the way government is framed in the 21st century. We're constantly told the government is either inept, evil, or both – and that the only way to solve problems is to either "go rogue" or hire a private contractor to fix the problem. That was the theme of not only the A-Team, but the entire "vigilante" genre of similar '80s productions like The Dukes of Hazzard, Ghostbusters, Die Hard and all the cheesy private detective shows. Their message was simple: You can’t rely on government, you must instead rely on the private corporation.
Sirota returned to these productions' apparent "anti-government" themes when the CNN producer asked what was the writer's "most embarassing 1980s guilty pleasure."
Probably that as much as I've realized the really pernicious messages of 1980s pop culture, I still nonetheless love a lot of it. For instance, I can see the ugliness of the anti-government message embedded in Ghost Busters [sic], but it remains one of my favorite movies – a film I watch over and over again and enjoy on Saturday nights whenever it reruns on cable.
Same thing for video games – as hideously militaristic as Atari's Combat and Missile Command were, I still love playing them on my old Atari, just like I now love playing Halo on my Xbox. In short, as much as I now see the problems of my propagandized youth, I still cling to that youth in a lot of ways. Maybe that's the definition – and power – of that ethereal thing we commonly call "nostalgia."
It's enough to make one cry out a catchphrase of one of the stars of The A Team: "I pity the fool."
Earlier in the interview, Kernis asked, "What is the main lesson Barack Obama should learn from what happened in the 1980s?" The Huffington Post contributor critiqued the President from the left as he revealed a central thesis from his book (played up by CNN in the title of their item):
The...lesson which I don't think he appreciates is the idea that in order for him to be the transformational president he says he wants to be, he's going to need to introduce genuinely new narratives and storylines, rather than simply trying to tweak the current ones that endure from the 1980s.
This is a key point of my book: The mythology of the 1980s still defines our thinking on everything from militarism, to greed, to race relations. If he is going to really change the country in a way he himself said he aspires to, he cannot simply accommodate or play within those fundamentally 1980s narratives. He has to offer up whole new storylines that say, for instance, unquestioned militarism is problematic, that greed is not good and that non-whites do not have to "transcend" their race/ethnicity in order to be valuable people in our society.
To date, Obama (like most politicians) has not done that – he has not offered up a fundamentally different analysis than the one that came out of the 1980s.
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Hold up.
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:55pm.
The intellectual dishonesty shows as soon as someone claims that TEA partiers are anti-government. I haven't met one yet who is anti-government. Now, I have met quite a few who are against government operating outside Constitutional boundaries set for it within that creating document.
Those folks who tout the "anti-government" line are doing so because the substance of their debate leaves a wee bit to be desired and they need to spruce it up a bit as a result.
They can continue with their strawmen arguments, complete with false premise and outright lies, but they will still continue to lose the debate over the long run. You know why? The truth in Liberty always finds a way to slip through the grip of tyrants no matter how hard they try to squeeze.
So at the same time the
Submitted by ant on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:59pm.
So at the same time the writer is being critical of the 50's as a time of a hypnotic-like comfort and ignorance where you can rest in your little suburban fantasy, he is critical of the fact that now we refuse to settle into a hypnotic-like comfort, resting in the ignorance that the government will provide us bliss (partly because of 80's TV shows). Am I getting this right? And I'm thinking it is somehow against human nature for people to rail against authority and we are off-track if we don't trust "government", in the writers opinion. This is despite over-whelming evidence to the contrary, no matter what decade. The Beverly Hillbillies unwittingly knocked the plans of "the establishment", as well as did 'The Munsters', 'Hogan's Heroes' portrayed 'authority' as incompetent (shame on them/sarc) and on and on. Not to mention, comic book heroes. Are we to root for J. Jonah Jameson over Spider-man or hope General Ross catches the Hulk? This writer would make a perfect party member in Orwell's 1984 or at least a good prison-camp guard in 1944.Disturbing
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:03pm.
Back to the Future featured a time traveling DeLorean. Ghostbusters was anti-government? The A-Team and The Dukes were supposed to be taken seriously? Missile Command was militaristic? Because my memory of that ancient game recalls digital shapes and lines, neither of which resembled what the snazzy cover art portrayed. No wonder I'm so screwed up.No. that can't be the reason at all.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:01pm.
I think it is the pickles and peppers packed in your posterior.LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:08pm.
No, really. LOL.Glad you like being ridiculed Dead Zippers.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:18pm.
At least it keeps you from spamming up the joint harassing women and miniature ungulates like you have done over the course of 20 retread accounts.Question
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:27pm.
A guy came knocking on my door a few nights ago looking for donations for a homeless vet shelter in the neighborhood. Was that you?Are we having a happy time trade of insults here?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:35pm.
You are a vicious nasty little bigot that hates women, conservatives, christians, and anyone that has ever disagreed with you. You are a BIGOT. It is why you have been BANNED 20 times FOR CAUSE.
Now pack sand because I am not playing your 20 time retread game.
Watch it, he may call in the NAACP
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:41pm.
.Hmph
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:43pm.
You're not playing, while you're playing. Huh? Make some sense of this. You don't want to play, but you keep leaving me messages laced with sexual references, albeit really, really funny ones. You're inconsequential in my world, so keep up the pep.Most people get a little ticked at being called another user
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 9:08pm.
Real people get confused and ticked at being confused with another user. But yeah, not you. You are used to it after 20 times.
Whatever, you act like I am inconsequential, but you keep coming back time after time just to be banned again and again. I won't even go into the psychology of why a little nasty bigot like you keeps coming back. But you sure do play the psychologist on why people diss on you.
Whatever. Little momma's boy. You looking for your daddy figure. Look elsewhere. I ain't it. You are a nasty little vicious bigot. It is all you have ever been. It is all you will ever be. I am not here to fix you or play your retread troll games where you pretend to be a new character every few months. I am here to remind people that you lie by pretending to be a new user when in fact you are the nasty bigot that comes here and gets banned for cause.
Pack sand. Pack it hard. Pack it tight.
Do you think you're the first person to call me a name?
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 9:58pm.
I've been called a dozen other names by a dozen other people before you, and frankly yours mean little to me. Was I to recognize that as another "user" without prior knowledge of this website? You might notice I've paid little attention to any of the names I've been called, so don't think you're special.
The sand thing again. WTH? If you would please indulge me and clue me in to what the weird sand reference means. And you? A daddy figure? It's been a long time since childhood, but I'd have to say you would make an awful authority figure. No offense.
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:00pm.
Play dumb like you have not been banned 20 times. Don't expect the rest of us to humor you. Sissy. Too stupid to maintain one account for any length of time. You demand we treat you like you iz brand spanky nu shuz, MmmmKay?
Only a little mommy's boy like you will keep coming back where he is clearly not welcome or wanted. Whatever, mommy's boy. Keep seeking approval from people that hate you. You act like it is all on me. MmmmmKay? I am the guy still on his first account. I do know how to act appropriate around others. It is all on me. I did not clue you in enough. Me. Not the 20 time loser that gets an account name driven into the mud because he is a stupid bigot and then acts out in order to get banned and start over. Yeah, I is crazy. Not you at all.
Play dumb. See if I care. We both know the truth. That won't change no matter how dumb you play.
Play dumb Dead Zippers.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:09pm.
Mommy's little pickle: ...dozen other names by a dozen other people before you...
I went through your history on this new account Dead Zippers. Not once did you ever so much as let out a peep when you were called by all of the variations of your old names. Again, acting dumb gets you no where.
And Again, the little sheltered mommy's boy that never had a male presence in his life and rarely saw one does not know how to interact around other people. New users, real people that have not led a sheltered mommy's boy existence, get confused and a little shocked when someone confuses them with another person.
Not the little sheltered mommy's little sissy that you are. Took it right in stride and moved along.
You went through my history???
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 12:05pm.
That makes at least 3 of you little bottom feeders who are hopelessly attracted to my profile page.
And again, daddy references, sand references, it sounds to me someone is projecting.
Whoops. Dead Zippers slips again.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 12:34pm.
Deddy references? Who said Deddy? No one here called you by your old nickname. Awwww. someone is getting butt hurt again. It is illegal to look at your history and profile page ain't it little butt hurt troll. Now go call mumzietroll because that diaper weighs at least 20 pounds wet and it gets tough dragging it around. Poor little sissy butt hurt troll that has been banned 20 times now suddenly gets offended.You just said it, ya goon
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:02pm.
Read the post
Slowly
Carefully
There! You got it. Daddy ≠ deddy, doofus.
Poor Deddy.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 9:23pm.
Veet won't stop picking on teh poor trollies. mumzie. Diaper. full. Changiez.Is that what you call picking on?
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 9:25pm.
You should go back to school, son.Tell mumzietroll and dudd...
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 11:48pm.
oops. Can't tell duddytroll. He took one look at the feckless offspring and threw himself into the volcanic pit of Mordor. mumzie's little boy finally threw off the fake persona and is back to the same feckless sissyboy he always was. That was right quick huh?
Now that you stopped pretending, why don't you create an Easter Egg Hunt charity forum for me. Sissy.
Still waiting for you to explain why a white little troll sissy picked a jpeg called Angry Black Man.
***** UPDATE The butt hurt diaper troll changed his picture UPDATE*****
Changing your picture won't excuse WHY a white union shill chose a jpeg called Angry Black man. Still wating for the reason you did that nwahs.
Vet, I see Peter Piper threw in the appellation ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 1:15am.
"son".
Troll U - "Dissing 101", right?
cajun nailed him with "deddy" on another thread.
Ol' Peter P. played the "huh" gambit.
"bottom feeders" !!
This one might even crack ahead of schedule.
MD
Read your PM's.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 1:18am.
Got something for you.Was he banned again?
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 9:46am.
Was he banned again?
"Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page."
Question of the day: is Zippers now a ghost or a poltergeist?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 9:58am.
Woooooo, wooooooooo, wooooooo!Neither. He's a
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 10:01am.
Neither. He's a doppelganger.
[And for those of you in Rio Linda, CA and Lutz, FL, a doppelganger is, according to Merriam-Webster: "a ghostly counterpart of a living person"
LOL. I swear I just saw an orb fly out of your post
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 10:10am.
Scareeey!Where does one start?
Submitted by Prester John on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:10pm.
"Likewise, we are supposed to forget that the 1960s saw great progress on civil rights (which was supported by a majority of the GOP and resisted by the Democratic South, without which Kennedy could not have been elected) and that liberals in the 1960s ultimately helped end the Vietnam War (which the Great Society Presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated into a full scale debacle and which a Republican, the EVIL Richard Nixon ended)."Meanwhile, I suppose that it would have been a good thing for the Berlin Wall to still be standing and the Soviet Union to still have several thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at the US and its allies and vice versa.
The Left is truly insane.
David Sirota, another liberal
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:17pm.
David Sirota, another liberal with delusions of relevance.Sirota-vision
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:38pm.
If one alters the "facts," one can derive any conclusion one desires. The distrust of Big Government didn't originate with the TV series "The A Team." It goes back to the Sixties that Sirota apparently glorifies, and carried into the Seventies.
Forget Hannibal Smith and BA Barracus. They were fictional characters. How real anti-government events like the Pentagon Papers, and the fallout from Watergate, and the activities of the radical Left as typified by the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Weather Underground, and Black Panther Party? How about Leftist like terror-bomber Bill Ayers, a friend of President Obama. Listen to the radical music of the period and try to find one song with an appeal for Big Government. In the lyrics of Jeffferson Airplane, "Up against the wall, mother - f******!!" Check out Steppenwolf's song "Monster." The Left was openly and sometimes violently rejecting the "oppression" of Big Government."
The radical Left not only rejected the American values of the Fifties, they sought to obliterate them (at least, their icons), and radically reform the government that they didn't trust.
Yet, ironically, while Sirota blasts anti-Obama forces for harkening to the nostalgia of the Fifties -- a period the most Americans are too young to have fully experienced -- he acknowledges a nostalgic pang for the Eighties, more specifically, games. How nice.
I find it odd that the A-Team
Submitted by RDD on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:21pm.
I find it odd that the A-Team would be considered a conservative message when I thought the concept of the US military wrongfully accusing and imprisoning the group to be more of a liberal "the military is evil" message. Also the whole Ghost Busters being an anti-government arguement is just stretching logic. Part of the humor behind it was the fact that you had a small group of people who were trying to combat a problem that nobody throught existed in the first place. The Missile Command reference is interesting as well. I recently saw a video discussion about the whole theme behind the game. It wasn't "pro-military" at all, the message the game developer was trying to get across was that the "nuclear option" was a horrible choice. No matter how well you played the game, eventually the cities you're trying to protect would be destroyed. The missiles would never stop coming and the player was doing nothing more then delaying the inevitable. I can't link the video now (at work) but I'll try to dig it up later.The author appears to be a
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:31pm.
The author appears to be a clueless, elitist, ivory-tower liberal who's part of the whine-and-cheese crowd. Almost certain his book will end up in $1 bins rather soon. Although it probably will wind up being used as a textbook at UC-Berkley and other similiarly minded schools passing themselves off as institutes of higher learning (well, in the case of UC-Berkley, "higher" has a double-meaning).To be fair, National Review...
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:12pm.
...once tagged Ghostbusters a conservative movie because it's a dopey EPA bureaucrat who temporarily shuts down the Ghostbusters, unleashing chaos on New York City because all the poltergeist captured by the busters were released at once. Ultimately the NYC Mayor decides to buck the federal intervention and gives the GBs the go-ahead to resume their operation. As for the A-Team, I never really considered it an anti-military message. We're not told that the A-Team were set up, just that they were wrongly convicted.No Poltergeists
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:54pm.
Only Ghosts in Ghostbusters. Poltergeists do not take on a physical form because they are considered to be forms of energy only. The entities in Ghostbusters are ghosts as evidenced by their physical appearance. Then again, the Poltergeist in Poltergeist 2 seems to actually be a ghost.Mr. Hollywood weighs in.
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 12:25am.
Ugh.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Bathhouses and Poppers lies to us.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 7:40am.
poltergeist: : a noisy usually mischievous ghost held to be responsible for unexplained noises (as rappings)
Merriam and her buddy Webster says poltergeists are noisy GHOSTS.
Same idiot as ever. Stupid don't shine no brighter no matter how many wrappers it gets.
Learn something
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 12:02pm.
Ghosts are spirits of people that have been caught between this plane of existence and the next. They are intelligent beings, often capable of interacting with the living.
Poltergeists are neither ghosts nor hauntings, but are caused by the unconscious mind of a living person, usually under some kind of stress.
Ghost interpretations
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 12:20pm.
Can you site me some information on the whole ghosts being intelligent and interacting with the living thing? Other than the movie "Ghost".The web is literally littered with information
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 12:31pm.
A simple search of "ghosts versus poltergeists" yields two and a half million results. Here's an example: http://www.trueghosttales.com/poltergeist.phpP&P
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 12:32pm.
No, I mean some scientific evidence that ghosts actually exist.Ah, well, now you're talking faith I reckon
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:08pm.
I've personally experienced several hauntings, one of the ghost-type captured on security video, and another of the poltergeist-type, objects moving without force. Why are you asking?Well Zippers, you are the resident expert on hauntings,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:16pm.
no denying that.Shush
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:19pm.
StalkerNot stalker.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 10:14am.
Zipperbuster.
(If you can hear me in the 4th Dimension, and I know you can)
What part of "scientific
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:36pm.
What part of "scientific evidence that ghosts actually exist" confuses you?
Not a thing
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:39pm.
You can do all the research you'd like on the topic, but proving ghosts exist matters not concerning my post and the differences between poltergeists and ghostsActually it does. And your
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:55pm.
Actually it does. And your "definitions" are about as relevant in real life as definitions for "tricorder" and "light sabre" are. Subjective fiction.
So once again, what part of "scientific evidence that ghosts actually exist" confuses you?
Elaborate
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:56pm.
Or buzz off.1) I was quite clear;and2)
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:14pm.
1) I was quite clear; and 2) since you have taken your retorts & response to the level of a kindergarten playground, in order for you to understand I guess responding in an intelligent, adult fashion will be just too difficult for you to understand and comprehend. Therefore the most understandable (at least for you personally) response to your juvenile "buzz off" is a vehement "make me!" ROFL!Did you fall out of your chair?
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:17pm.
Or do you surf from the floor? Not sure what made you roll around in hysterics, but for the sake of argument, let's leave that part for a moment. As far as your scientific proof goes, explain the relevance. So far your best and brightest retort seems to be along the lines of "I don't like your argument so it's wrong, but I have nothing to back up my own statement." Anyway, I hope someone vacuumed today.You're an amusing little
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:59pm.
You're an amusing little troll...irrelevant but amusing nonetheless.
Let us know when you have something of substance to offer. Otherwise you are just wasting bandwidth and oxygen.
P&P
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 3:57pm.
I'm just asking because it's an unproven phenomenon, and you and hydro are arguing about the definitions of something that doesn't exist. Seeing things on film doesn't really impress me. Light is weird and can cause all kinds of things to appear on media that we can't see firsthand. You can do all sorts of tricks with lighting too.Civility at last
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 4:04pm.
So I'll start by thanking you for that. I'm not an expert on the supernatural, but I do know how to google. What I found were 2 distinct definitions backed up by several different resources. The only arguments against my post have been m-w.com's definition, or simply the "no, you're wrong" variety. What I find interesting you may not, and whether ghosts or spirits or poltergeists exist may well be debated, but it should be recognized that there is a difference.Radical1979
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 4:42pm.
Actually, I'm arguing about the definition of something within the context of a fictional universe.
Not much different than folks who are into The Lord of the Rings arguing about whether balrogs have wings or not.
Actually Balrogs have Lear
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 4:44pm.
Actually Balrogs have Lear jets.
I got the info from online sources so they gotta be right (the P&P defense). LOL!
They do not
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 4:45pm.
For the sake of argument. : }Hydro
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 4:50pm.
Gotcha. Get this kind of argument from my son a lot. I tend not to bite when he does it. There are to many other issues to argue about with a 20 year old. :)Hey butt hurt diaper troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 12:35pm.
Quit yer whining, get your hand out of your diaper, and take it up with Merriam-Webster. Idiot.Pickles and Peppers
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:04pm.
Actually, if you want to be truly dorky about it, you would have to appeal to the classification scheme within the Ghostbusters universe (either the movies, cartoons or RPG) to back up your claim.
From what I understand, poltergeists are Class 2 entities within that universe.
So there.
You may know more than I
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:13pm.
I can really only speak for the Ghostbusters movies, since I never saw the cartoon. RPG, should that be RPJ, as in Ray Parker Jr, or are you referring to something else?RPG = role playing game (Do
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:16pm.
RPG = role playing game
(Do some research P&P)
Is that like Dungeons & Dragons?
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:18pm.
Never been a fan.You've never been a fan?
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:22pm.
OMO!
This from the record-holding retread on NB, he of a thousand internet personas.
Feckless, you are far, far more transparent than Obama.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Feckless Feckless Feckless
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:27pm.
You're so feckless, feckless one. You couldn't be more feckless if you grew on the feckless tree and hit every feckless branch on your feckless way down, feckless! Did I get your message?Poor Feckless
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:39pm.
....at least you now know the meaning of the word, Feckless. I've obviously hit the mark with it too, else we wouldn't have this little screaming diatribe against it, now would we?
BTW, I see you had nothing to say about your obviously false assertion that you were not a fan of RPG's. Go figure!
I think you need to abandon the P&P persona, perhaps go back to one of your other ones. No one here is buying P&P any longer.
Toodles, Feckless.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You're only fooling yourself
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:48pm.
Let's look at the points you're stuck on:
RPGs. What are you even talking about? Do you think you won some sort of argument because I didn't know what an RPG was, or because you somehow think that secretly I enjoy RPGs but just can't seem to admit it on a blog.
"Screaming diatribe" ---- Had I wanted to scream I would have used CAPS and BOLD to make my comments. I was mocking you, quite effectively I reckon.
You're a legend in your own mind, Feckless
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 3:24pm.
Oh the irony!!!! Your little dodge of not knowing what an RPG was, while hiding behind yet another fake internet persona, is, as Noel would say, delicious. Methinks thee doth protest too much. (Nice try, purposefully misreading all of the Deddy references ~ yet another hated nick of yours ~ as "Daddy". It's just the epitome of your fecklessness).
Actually, it's Game, Set, and Match to me.
You may go now. I'm bored with this iteration of you.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Pickles and Peppers
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 2:56pm.
So does that mean you acknowledge you were wrong to correct Mr. Shepherd's references to poltergeists?
No, I was not wrong
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 3:01pm.
Whether they exist or not, there are definitions in place describing both ghosts and poltergeists, as well as the differences between the two. Furthermore, after searching a half dozen or so web pages prior to my post, I believe what I stated is accurate and informative.Your "definitions" are
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 3:13pm.
Your "definitions" are subjective and the one you cited earlier wasn't from an acknowledged legitimate source. Merriam-Webster is more reputable than what you actually presented. P&P you continue to be an amusing little troll but now one with no credibility...actually you didn't have credibility to begin with.Pickles and Peppers
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 3:31pm.
First I'll say that this is an unbelievably silly argument to get into - but as a geek, I'm all about nitpicking things like this.
Second, keep in mind that we are talking about the events within a fictional universe. If you are going to argue about the definitions or categorization of things within that universe, you have to follow its rules.
Within the Ghostbuster universe, poltergeists are classified as Class 2 entities/ghosts. End of story.
How ghosts and poltergeists are defined within other contexts is completely irrelevant. It would be like arguing that I can but a king or bishop anywhere on a chest board at any point in the game because in real life, kings and bishops can walk around however they want.
You were wrong.
Get over it - it's not a big deal.
If it isn't a big deal
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 3:37pm.
What is your issue with correcting me? Do you think the poster above who I corrected was familiar with the extended Ghostbusters universe as he made his post? I do not. I believe he was referring to one movie, and despite the expanded universe of Ghostbusters and textbook definitions, the scientific definitions by those in the field of paranormal activity consider ghosts and poltergeists to be two absolute different entities. I've posted links to back up this view, and you can take it or leave it."scientific definitions by
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 3:45pm.
"scientific definitions by those in the field of paranormal activity"
Now THAT is an oxymoronic phrase. Even non sequitural.
Scientific definitions...at least reputable ones...do not arise from non-scientific sources such as "the field of paranormal activity."
Are you implying the T.A.P.S. guys aren't scientists?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 4:19pm.
They DO use meters, you know.
Of course they also use meters on their day jobs - as Roto-Rooter plumbers.
Pickles adn Peppers
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 4:50pm.
I'm correcting you because I think you are wrong. What's so hard to understand about that?
Whether that poster was familiar with that universe or not is irrelevant. What he wrote was correct within the universe he was commenting on.
The fact is that neither movie specifies such things so you have to go to the extended universe of Ghostbusters for clarification. Within that context - the only one that makes any sense - you are wrong.
And despite your personal feelings or beliefs, the existence of ghosts isn't an established empirical fact. All the links to all the websites in the world doesn't change that. Consequently, the classifications some in the real world have adopted for these things is pretty much arbitrary.
So how you can refer to "scientific definitions" is completely beyond me.
Fine
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 5:06pm.
Conceded via exhaustion.The author makes a pointless
Submitted by SPCOlympics on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:33pm.
The author makes a pointless argument.I was in high school and college during the '80s and non-political back then. I'm in the Tea Party movement now. But it wasn't '80s entertainment that brought me here. Rather it was two specific things after the '80s.
1) The rise of talk-radio. Specifically Rush and Mark Levin. Without talk-radio I'd would still be an apolitical "independent".
2) Taxes. Paying bills, filing your own taxes with a Schedule C. That was a real eye-opener the first time I crunched the numbers. Then idiots like Michael Moore, Stephen King, and Barak Obama declare that I don't pay enough. Never played golf but I can' afford the time or the fees...
I'm confused
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:35pm.
So Sirota and his ilk want to take us back to the, ummmm, 50's, when taxes were 90% and the Government knew best."when taxes were 90% and the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 9:50am.
"when taxes were 90% and the Government knew best"
Isn't that where Obama wants to take the U.S.?
Disappointment is what I felt
Submitted by Utherpend on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:40pm.
Disappointment is what I felt in the 80's when most of those shows aired on network TV. The premise sounded good but the actual product was simplistic and unrealistic. I HATE tv from the 80's for the opposite of what this fool at the Huffington Post touts as the blame of the 80's.Actually my mistrust of the
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:48pm.
Actually my mistrust of the government began in the 60's with the great society democrat president who sent me to Vietnam.So much symbolism I never realized.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:57pm.
So much crap condensed into such a small head. Maybe a lot of the shows and movies mentioned were just stories sold to entertain and make some money. But what do I know, sometimes I think a cigar is just a cigar.I pitty the fool.....
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:00pm.
.......who doesn't like the 80's!"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Intellectual dishonesty
Submitted by Zepppo on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:30pm.
Actually the acts of intellectual dishonesty are too numerous to go into, but I think one point that should be made is that all that anti-government tv and movies was produced when Reagan was president and so would be directed at him and as was pointed out, Alex Keaton's Reaganesque ways was a major source of the jokes and frequently made his parents 60ish ways seem superior. Alex was a mockery of conservatism while his parents were the wise liberals. Hollywood and TV were all about making Reagan look bad and "Sneakers" was a clasic example of that with a throw away line to a bum of blaming Reagan for his circumstances. If now that reflects bad towards Obama then that is only their fault. Does Hollywood really think they can make a government look bad and have everybody forget that when a new party is in charge?You need a villian in movies. And they go in trends.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 9:43pm.
Steven Seagal had the CIA. Back to the Future had Libyans. Die Hard had the -- what they hell were they again? Stripes had the Commies. Terminator had technology - the machines. Trading Places and Wall Street had rich Wall Street types. One of the Lethal Weapon movies had South African guys. To lay the entire decade of movies' villians at the feet of government is utterly disengenuous. But then the entire article was pretty much a big joke.Come on
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 10:01pm.
With a name like Hans Gruber wouldn't you assume he's German?Go away 20 time retread.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 7:45am.
We ain't buddies. You are a vicious nasty little bigot that hates women, conservatives, Christians, and anyone that has ever disagreed with you. You are a BIGOT. It is why you have been BANNED 20 times FOR CAUSE.
WTH?
Submitted by ozarkian on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:36pm.
Did I read correctly that he said that in the 1950's, America was "an apartheid state"? Umm...Well, there WERE Jim Crow laws in the South in the 30's, but in 1950's Indiana, we had black kids in our school and ever'thing! And they didn't even need passes to move around town! He's thinkin' it was like South Africa at its worst (well, no, it's really bad now) when it was really like "Leave It To Beaver," except I don't remember my mom ever vacuuming in heels and pearls. Sounds to me like ths is some dude (Hmm, first I typed "dud" -- Freudian?) who came-of-age in the early 80's and was a lib in college, so now is all uptight at life because it wasn't particularly a liberal decade. I'd like to tell him, um,the 80's weren't really that much of an influential time in history, unless those were your growing up years, and you still hum Tears for Fears in the shower. As for the 90% tax rate in the 50's, I do believe there might be a qualifier in that claim, as most individuals were not paying that. AND as for government being king....it was there to protect you if the Russians decided to send bombers over, but otherwise, they weren't really in the picture of the average American all that much. We ate whatever we wanted and went to our own private doctors, and Eisenhower didn't pop up on every awards show or even episodes of Bonanza. This was a strange article, and it is a bizarre theme for a book.CARTOON LOGIC
Submitted by JPTSO3 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 8:19pm.
Yeah, the A Team was hideous... but not because of some invented or hidden jingoism… It was hideous in it’s “ugliness” because it was freaking awful. The A Team was militaristic like Bugs Bunny with a baseball bat or El Kebong braining a bad guy. It was a cartoon - with live actors.
Was anyone ever killed during an A Team episode ( besides dying of boredom)? Answer… no. Bonanza was more violent. Little Joe shot more bad guys in a single episode than the A Team did in its entire run. The Ghostbusters was anti-government? Seriously? Yeah, I guess… like a couple of loadies blowing a bong are “anti-government”.
The A Team was a kids show.
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 9:14pm.
The A Team was a kids show. I enjoyed it when I was about 8 years old while sitting in a bean bag chair eating Funyun's. I used to idolize guys like Alex P Keaton and Ronald Reagan. Let's see. Now we have an oddball named Barack Obama that is/isn't muslim, was/wasn't born in America and seems to do nothing but split the country into two. Yea, things are MUCH better now.I wouldn't say it was a kid's
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 10:37pm.
I wouldn't say it was a kid's show. I'd say it was a show that dads could enjoy with their sons and not have to worry about foul language, gratuitous violence, or sex. There aren't really many shows like that now.The A-Team
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:52pm.
When The A-Team was available to us military brats in Europe, especially those of us who were male, we knew to stop what we were doing at the appointed hour and to head inside and watch the show. I had to have been around 9, 10 years old. At the bus stop and the playgrounds the next day, all we would be talking about was The A-Team.
Yeah, I would say it was a kid's show. Good times.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"Happy Days" and "Laverne and Shirley" were 1970s.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 10:15pm.
Sirota is ignorant of popular culture. The great 1950s revival started back in the mid-early 70s and continued through the 1980s. Guess that happens when you live on the dark side of the rock like he does.That guys article gave me a headache!
Submitted by brutony1 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 10:35pm.
He wants to glorify the 60's that he thinks happened-I lived in those times, and they werent groovy, man! I want to remember Reagan, B.A., and Alex P Keaton! And besides, I PITY THE FOOL who be dissing Mr T!When will liberals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! -Me
McFly and Keaton
Submitted by nkviking75 on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 12:19am.
"Those two characters perfectly represent exactly how the 1980s was revising and reimagining contemporary American history on ideological lines. Think about it: Marty McFly was a suburban teen fleeing the cartoonized dangers of modern life...into an idyllic Fifties of unity and safety. Alex P. Keaton, by contrast, spends his life lambasting his parents Sixties idealism." Marty McFly had no desire or intent to flee to the 50's. He just had the misfortune of having to escape terrorists in a time machine,. the only vehicle handy. And he certainly had no desire to remain there. Also, by blundering around in 1950's Mill Valley he nearly jeopardized his own existence. Marty needed to clean up his mess and get back to 1985. As for Alex P. Keaton, he was a cartoonish version of a Reagan Republican. He was a vehicle for ridiculing conservatives“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
You couldn't be more correct,
Submitted by ant on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:02am.
You couldn't be more correct, nkviking75. This guy's whole theory,theme,proposition, whatever you want to call it, is weak, to say the least. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the whole book is a confusing ( in the way of making no sense, not the astrophysics kind of confusing) pile of waste."..I pity the foo', too!"
Submitted by oddsox on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 8:57pm.
Anyone not buying Sirota's revisionist carney hustle on the 1980s is invited to read my review of his book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2ZWOIKHJZ8S05/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2ZWOIK...
I swear my "Pity the Foo'" remark was rendered independently of Mathew Balan's.
Turns out other critics of the book have used it, too -- a common reflex.