Episode 3: Revenge of the Gays, Are You One Too?

[Disney Duster]

Lazario, conservatism and religion are supposed to be for good and can be good.

The only way I think conservatism is good, is when you're talking about 'conserving' the environment --which is not something conservatives are doing these days. The days of Teddy Roosevelt are long gone.

No I mean conservatism also conserves good things and practices. Change isn't always good as we all know. Like how Disney has changed. There's just certain things that should stay the same. Like that we currently think children should be treated like children. They're starting to grow up too fast now. If you don't agree, it doesn't matter, I'm sure there are some things you can think of that should stay the same like...keeping books around, instead of always relying on kindle or the internet.

[Lazario]

No I mean conservatism also conserves good things and practices.

Yeah, like: robbing the poor to feed the rich who are already living it up past excess. And: ensuring we never have equal rights. That we recognize they feel there is a difference in worth between whites and other ethnicities, men and women, straights and gays.

Change isn't always good as we all know.

Truth. However, conservatism is responsible for the huge problems America has been experiencing since the change in the economic climate following Bush lying, cheating, and stealing his way into office. So, in trying to defend it, you just proved what's wrong with conservatism. When things were getting better, they changed them and made them bad. Very, very bad. And that's saying nothing about the way they've most likely created Idiocracy culture (though, admittedly, this really started in the mid-90's with Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, and the Farrelly brothers movies).

Like how Disney has changed.

Yeah? It's been changing in small doses since 101 Dalmatians and the arrival of the 1960's. Hell, one could say that Bambi changed Disney too. Or Pinocchio (since it's clear to anyone it's a more risque film than Snow White). But the most radical changes in my eyes took place in the 80's under Reagan- clearly a conservative. Look at how maternal, circle-of-life, and mating-game the vibe to Fox and the Hound is throughout. Then, the confrontation of slightly more realistic violence in Black Cauldron. Then, Ratigan's whole pretending-to-be-something-he's-not character motivation. A rat from the slums who hatches a plot to take over the English mouse-aristocracy. But only because he's a tyrant who wants to be the ruling class. Then, Oliver & Company brings more messages of slum people who want a taste of something richer. For many, I could see the 80's being cited as a decade of blandness. Since the films as a group either lack magic or danger. But then... there's the 70's, with The Aristocats being right smack in the time of Nixon (another conservative).

There's just certain things that should stay the same.

I half-agree. Change is non-negotiable. It happens regardless. But I think we should want it to come slowly when instead, it usually happens too quickly. At least, culturally.

Like that we currently think children should be treated like children.

Since the Bush Administration got their hands on this country, children aren't the only people who were being treated like children.

They're starting to grow up too fast now.

I've heard theories stating that this has actually been more gradual than you might believe. Every generation which has grown to 30-something looks at teenagers and marvels at the changes since their time. Or in some cases... stares, shocked / agast, with mouth hanging wide open. (Most cases?)

[Disney Duster]

Well...I was just saying conserving things can be good. I already also stated that it can and has been used for bad. Yea.


But I gotta say, the 80's...great times, if not the best in my opinion. It was like the 50's trying to get that nice feeling again, but, there's was also girl power and more gay freedom. I mean...the 80's was the gayest decade. And The Little Mermaid, which is like every gay guy's favorite movie (obviously that is a half-true exaggeration, but it certainly seems like it), came from that time. Oliver & Company was also a pretty huge musical. Pretty gay. I like those two movies a lot.

Also, The Fox & the Hound seems to be some of kind of odd gay Romeo & Juliet. It seems to say that these two really should be friends, but society (and biology) keep them apart, and unfortunately, society wins. It's saying it shouldn't win, but yet, it does. It seems more subversive and unconservative than you think. I also like this film.

But The Black Cauldron...okay, I guess it did turn out bland, but it was not intended to be bland, it was very ambitious and full of fantasy, and in my own interest and enjoyment of it, it is not bland for me at all.

And you know Disney has changed the most now, even other reviewers noted that when Disney started doing their sci-fi films it seemed they went batsh*t crazy by that point. It seems obvious to me now that personal love of science fiction took over the films, instead of thinking "what is good for a Disney movie". When even Chicken Little was science fiction, this now seems obvious.

And know, I don't want change for everything. Thank goodness we still look back at the past and find interest in it, listening to old music, wearing old styles of clothes, seeing what worked so well for other generations...


As for children growing up faster...well...I'm pretty sure they started out early on having to take on big jobs and providing for the family. Finally, they didn't need to anymore. Now, kids want to work earlier and now puberty's onsetting earlier, though it's because of food hormones. But they're dressing sexier. It's just that now we seem to be getting the worst of it. I suppose it could be that's it's been happening so long, it's only gotten so bad now, it just took a while. Elementary kids are cursing and playing violent video games.

[Goliath]

However, conservatism is responsible for the huge problems America has been experiencing since the change in the economic climate following Bush lying, cheating, and stealing his way into office. [...] And that's saying nothing about the way they've most likely created Idiocracy culture (though, admittedly, this really started in the mid-90's with Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, and the Farrelly brothers movies).

I'm sorry, but I have to correct you. It all started when Ronald Reagan, the man who famously said ketchup is a vegetable, turned from a clueless B-actor into the president of the US. The culture of Idiocracy and glorifying ignorance started when he took down the solar panels from the White House roof, that President Carter has installed there.

But the most radical changes [to Disney] in my eyes took place in the 80's under Reagan- clearly a conservative. Look at how maternal, circle-of-life, and mating-game the vibe to Fox and the Hound is throughout. Then, the confrontation of slightly more realistic violence in Black Cauldron. Then, Ratigan's whole pretending-to-be-something-he's-not character motivation. A rat from the slums who hatches a plot to take over the English mouse-aristocracy. But only because he's a tyrant who wants to be the ruling class. Then, Oliver & Company brings more messages of slum people who want a taste of something richer.

Wow, talk about over-analyzing...

I'm sorry, as a film scholar, I shouldn't say that. I would never have looked at it like that. But you know, that's a really, really interesting point of view. Most of the times, studies of Disney films deal with gender or race, but your reply suggests scholars should do some more research on the socio-political influences on Disney. Good call!

But I gotta say, the 80's...great times, if not the best in my opinion.

It was a nice time if you were affluent; if you had a really great job with an equally great paycheck. For the rest of the people, it's where the misery of today all started. Trickle-down economics, tax cuts for the richest individuals, deregulating big business, privatization of essential government services, lay-offs left and right, stagnating wages, and the biggest increase in the gap between rich and poor in modern history.

It was like the 50's trying to get that nice feeling again,

Yes, it was 'morning in America again'. It's what I call evil with a happy face. The working people all got screwed and were shitted on, but they continued to vote for the same c*cks*ckers because 'they brought back patriotism'.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/K7INA ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/K7INA ... 1&hl=nl_NL" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

And you know Disney has changed the most now, even other reviewers noted that when Disney started doing their sci-fi films it seemed they went batsh*t crazy by that point. It seems obvious to me now that personal love of science fiction took over the films, instead of thinking "what is good for a Disney movie". When even Chicken Little was science fiction, this now seems obvious.

No, that's just your personal opinion. You didn't like Lilo & Stitch because Stitch supposedly had no "soul", whatever that may mean. And I think it was Lazario (but I'm not sure, so correct me if I'm wrong) who pointed out that you don't like science-fiction movies or sci-fi elements, because it implicates that there's life out there in outer space --which conflicts with your religious views that there's only life on earth because God only cares about earth. Something to that extent --Lazario (I think) worded it much better, but you get what I mean. And I think that's a good explanation of your aversion against science-fiction. But that doesn't mean *in any way* that sci-fi somehow is 'un-Disney'. Because it is not.

And your rant about "today's youth"... Well, it's not really different from what older people have said about my generation, or what older people said about the generation before mine, and so on and so on...


Or, to answer your post the short version:

[Lazario]

I'm sorry, but I have to correct you. It all started when Ronald Reagan, the man who famously said ketchup is a vegetable, turned from a clueless B-actor into the president of the US. The culture of Idiocracy and glorifying ignorance started when he took down the solar panels from the White House roof, that President Carter has installed there.

But, when did it trickle down () from there to the public? When did we start to exhibit this same goofiness and screw-anyone-over for a penny idealism? America's Funniest Home Videos? Wall Street? When did we start making our entertainment dumber and more pointless?

But the most radical changes [to Disney] in my eyes took place in the 80's under Reagan- clearly a conservative. Look at how maternal, circle-of-life, and mating-game the vibe to Fox and the Hound is throughout. Then, the confrontation of slightly more realistic violence in Black Cauldron. Then, Ratigan's whole pretending-to-be-something-he's-not character motivation. A rat from the slums who hatches a plot to take over the English mouse-aristocracy. But only because he's a tyrant who wants to be the ruling class. Then, Oliver & Company brings more messages of slum people who want a taste of something richer.

Wow, talk about over-analyzing...

Ha. If anything- I feel I may have glossed over some important details in the interest of just stuffing the main points into my argument. I didn't even bother with explaining where in his behaviors my observations come from. It was merely one way of looking at it. But, for example- Ratigan was trying to take over the government and wanted bloody revenge for every time someone called him a "rat." He was, in a sense, as far as the movie's plotline/story was concerned, trying to be something he wasn't. And he sorta lived in the slums; as Basil says, "...you are a contemptible...sewer rat." So, it's quite possible that some bad decisions and some apathy within the monarchy created something dark which spawned Ratigan's evil, lofty ambitions to steal what didn't belong to him.

I would never have looked at it like that. But you know, that's a really, really interesting point of view. Most of the times, studies of Disney films deal with gender or race, but your reply suggests scholars should do some more research on the socio-political influences on Disney. Good call!

Well, thank you.

And you know Disney has changed the most now, even other reviewers noted that when Disney started doing their sci-fi films it seemed they went batsh*t crazy by that point. It seems obvious to me now that personal love of science fiction took over the films, instead of thinking "what is good for a Disney movie". When even Chicken Little was science fiction, this now seems obvious.

No, that's just your personal opinion. You didn't like Lilo & Stitch because Stitch supposedly had no "soul", whatever that may mean. And I think it was Lazario (but I'm not sure, so correct me if I'm wrong) who pointed out that you don't like science-fiction movies or sci-fi elements, because it implicates that there's life out there in outer space --which conflicts with your religious views that there's only life on earth because God only cares about earth. Something to that extent --Lazario (I think) worded it much better, but you get what I mean. And I think that's a good explanation of your aversion against science-fiction. But that doesn't mean *in any way* that sci-fi somehow is 'un-Disney'. Because it is not.

(This is more directed at Duster)

Well... didn't Disney dabble a little in sci-fi while Walt was alive? I mean, Walt never shied away from having fun with witches, wizards, and black magic while he was alive (as the "All About Magic" special he hosted attests to, though there are also references to it being good in The Three Caballeros, and the whole bunch of people at the studio having a party with the Magic Mirror in the "One Hour in Wonderland" special). Then, there was that special Disney did about The Moon. I forget what it was, but that was in the 60's I think. Lots of sci-fi type stuff there. Then, there was Cat from Outer Space, Moon Pilot, Unidentified Flying Oddball, The Black Hole, Tron, Flight of The Navigator. Lots of stuff about space and outer space and aliens.

Repeat after me: "It's only a movie... only a movie... only a movie..."

[Goliath]

@ Lazario: Well, you named Wall Street, but that was meant by Oliver Stone as an *antidote* to the craze that was going on in the 1980's on Wall Street. He regretted that the yuppies took Gordon Gekko as an example and a hero. Gekko was meant as a warning.

I really don't think pop culture set the tone for idiocracy, but politics did. Remember that it also was the Reagan (Bush sr.)-administration that got rid of most regulations when it came to media ownership. The fact that most media are now owned by four or five (foreign) mega-corporations, with their 24 hours worth of ballyhoo derives directly from those policies. Reagan (Bush sr.) made it fashionable to not know things, to be clueless or ignorant. He was dubbed "the great communicator", while at the same time he would pull facts and figures out of his ass. He would literally make shit up during press conferences or speeches, and nobody called him on it. And if he got called on it, it didn't matter because he was just so darn adorable!

Like Bush after him, Reagan was the kind of guy you wanted to have a beer with.

[Lazario]

@ Lazario: Well, you named Wall Street, but that was meant by Oliver Stone as an *antidote* to the craze that was going on in the 1980's on Wall Street. He regretted that the yuppies took Gordon Gekko as an example and a hero. Gekko was meant as a warning.

I wasn't trying to implicate Stone in glorifying the 80's ideal of "get rich at any cost" with that film. I was asking you- do you feel 80's audiences were getting unsophisticated about that subject matter / took the film as a love letter in any way?

I really don't think pop culture set the tone for idiocracy

Well, it's been the target of criticism by both "sides," politically. Liberals complain that an increase of violence in the media and fictional entertainment makes people desensitized to it. And so did Bob Dole, for a while, in the late 90's- him and some others cited, strangely, the R-rated cut of Wes Craven's Scream as a specific example (the director's cut, which I own on VHS, has maybe 10 seconds of snipped gore / splatter placed back into the film)... though, really, that was a trendy ploy for attention- he jumped on the bandwagon a bit late since the crew involved in the critically lauded 1990 horror film Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer were criticizing both the Freddy and Jason slasher films of the 80's and the Arnold Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up blood-baths (especially Total Recall, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Predator, and The Running Man). And Republicans have been bitching forever about movies, shows, etc(.) that "indoctrinate" people into the gay lifestyle. Then there are those losers who say Lifetime (the TV channel) is pushing what they call a "Feminazi" agenda.

There are other examples. But the point is - everyone blames entertainment for trends to follow afterward that they find are dumbing down the culture. From film and tv to Britney Spears videos and live performances (though, today it's Miley Cyrus and a couple years ago it was Lindsay Lohan) to video games to porn sites to magazines to books. All media, these days. And I find that germane here for one reason, one thing makes me give it a serious consideration. It's that people don't look to politics and politicans to teach them anything. They want to be respresented by the people they think see the world the same way they do (like you said, the Beer-Drinker's Companion theory). And when people usually blame something for making the culture and children ill, they look to entertainment. It surely influences some people. I know for a fact kids dress in certain ways because of the media. It informs trends in fasion, music, slang-uage. And a lot of attitudes we have we've taken from movies, TV, music, etc.

Remember that it also was the Reagan (Bush sr.)-administration that got rid of most regulations when it came to media ownership. The fact that most media are now owned by four or five (foreign) mega-corporations, with their 24 hours worth of ballyhoo derives directly from those policies. Reagan (Bush sr.) made it fashionable to not know things, to be clueless or ignorant. He was dubbed "the great communicator", while at the same time he would pull facts and figures out of his ass. He would literally make shit up during press conferences or speeches, and nobody called him on it. And if he got called on it, it didn't matter because he was just so darn adorable!

Excellent point, naturally.

But now, it's a case of: they created the fire. And we feed it. Instead of recognizing how stupid things are now and hating it- we embrace it. We've grown to love it. We've been loving it ever since (as I said) the Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, and Farrelly brothers started it in the 90's. (But then again... critics were complaining that films were getting less sophisticated in the mid-to-late 80's with The Great Outdoors, the Bill & Ted series, Steven Seagal movies, and some Eddie Murphy films- I believe The Golden Child was considered something of a Gigli in its' day.)

[zackisthewalrus]

As of about 10 minutes ago, I've come out to both of my parents. They were both accepting, and it makes me so incredibly happy. I wasn't really afraid about my mom, but I wasn't sure about my dad. But he took it pretty well. I'm out. OUT OUT OUT!!!! It feels GREAT!

[blackcauldron85]

OMG, Zack! Congratulations!

***

I went to not only my first bar last night, but to my first gay bar. With Workboy. Haha. I danced with a guy...haha, he was a great dancer. Also, I've been kissed by 2 gay guys in the past week- one a coworker (not Workboy) and that dancing guy. Just on the cheek in both situations, but haha. Exciting week.

[Super Aurora]

I'm sorry, but I have to correct you. It all started when Ronald Reagan, the man who famously said ketchup is a vegetable, turned from a clueless B-actor into the president of the US. The culture of Idiocracy and glorifying ignorance started when he took down the solar panels from the White House roof, that President Carter has installed there.

Jimmy Cartwer was also a shitty president.

[pap64]

Congratulations, Zack! Great at least your parents accepted your new life!

[Wonderlicious]

I second what Amy and paps said! YAY FOR YOU, AND GOOD ON YOUR PARENTS!



And as presents, here are three elephants (one each, don't hog them all for yourself )

[Disney Duster]

Congratulations zack! Finally! Wohoo! So glad that you and them are all fine and happy!

Goliath, well, the 80's were certainly the best time when it came to fun and leisure, it was also great times to be a kid, a teenager, and great times to be gay. And it was a great time to make movies. It was a great time for certain ideas and certain freedoms.

By the way, to I actually like science-fiction. You got it all totally wrong. Including missing the fact that live-action and certain things Walt did was obviously part of popularity and so that lots of people would like it, why the very nature of live-action, more popular than animation. He did have an interest in education and space and probably science fantasy, but not nearly enough to make an animated classic about it. But the biggest thing you missed was that there is an obvious pattern of the current heads having so, so many sci-fi animated classics. Yes, it definately shows personal interest over the interest of the company and what Disney is about. I'm sure you can also see this, Lazario. And lo and behold, all these films kinda sucked and didn't make much, while neither did most Disney sci-fi films. It seems there's 20,000 Leagues and Lilo, and still, these aren't nearly successes like Lady and the Tramp or Mary Poppins. They don't represent Disney as much...

[UmbrellaFish]

Congratulations, Zack! I'm very happy for you and glad about your parents!

[Flanger-Hanger]

And as presents, here are three elephants (one each, don't hog them all for yourself )

Yes, because what every young gay man wants, more than anything else, is pink elephants.

But good for you for coming out Zack! It's not an easy thing to do and I'm glad that your parents are accepting too.

On another note I've been watching alot of Queer as Folk (US version) lately, anyone else here into the show?

[zackisthewalrus]

Thanks for everything you all! Today's just been wonderful!

P.S. I will use my pink elephants wisely, Wonderlicious. Thank you.

[pap64]

Ah, I think this video fits my feelings better for ya Zack!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oyFQVZ2h0V8?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oyFQVZ2h0V8?fs ... 2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Goliath]

Goliath, well, the 80's were certainly the best time when it came to fun and leisure, it was also great times to be a kid, a teenager, and great times to be gay. And it was a great time to make movies. It was a great time for certain ideas and certain freedoms.

No. And if you want to know why not, read my replies to Lazario. I'm sorry, but after answering him and Super Aurora, I'm too exhausted to react to this magintude of ignorance and self-deception.

I wasn't trying to implicate Stone in glorifying the 80's ideal of "get rich at any cost" with that film. I was asking you- do you feel 80's audiences were getting unsophisticated about that subject matter / took the film as a love letter in any way?

Well, audiences sure seemed to embrace Wall Street's main character Gordon Gekko as a hero, while in fact he was the villain of the story. The sympathy of the audience should have been with Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen)'s father and his little one-man enterprise, but instead people cheered for Wall Street rat Gekko was destroyed that character's life. It has often been said that the 1980's was 'the age of me', 'the age of materialism'. During an interview, the director and producer of Back to the Future said their film was also influenced by it, because Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox)'s ultimate reward at the end of the movie is a Landrover pick-up truck. He's seen in the beginning of the film dreaming about it. It's material wealth as the ultimate satisfaction.

Now it's a complicated question where this attitude came from. Did media influence the public or was it the other way around, and did media reflect the general attitude? More on that below...

Well, [pop culture has] been the target of criticism by both "sides," politically. Liberals complain that an increase of violence in the media and fictional entertainment makes people desensitized to it. And so did Bob Dole, [...] he jumped on the bandwagon a bit late since the crew involved in the [...] horror film Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer were criticizing both the Freddy and Jason slasher films of the 80's and the Arnold Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up blood-baths (especially Total Recall, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Predator, and The Running Man).

Films have always been subject to harsh criticism, especially when it comes to violence. It's not only liberals who complain about that, I believe both sides engage in it, although conservatives often seem to be more concerned with sex than they are with violence. But certainly there are a lot of 'puritans' in conservative circles who also loathe the increasing violence. This goes back as far as Bonnie and Clyde in 1967, in which Arthur Penn showed the violent death of the title characters in a graphic way that had never been seen before. It unleashed a huge controversy and it was the last blow to the Hays Code. The westerns by Sam Peckinpah (most notably 1969's The Wild Bunch) only increased the violence, and slowly, it became to be a part of (American) cinema, amongst considerable protest from left and right.

I think the 1980's action flicks are way different because of the way they deal with excessive violence. Directors like Penn and Peckinpah (and Sergio Leone in his spaghetti westerns) showed how violence hurt people. Instead of just seeing a guy get shot from some distance and immediately drop dead, like in the old days of 'classic' Hollywood, they let the audience know what impact it had on those who got hit, and they did so in extreme close-up to show the pain and the horror. The 1980's action films (you named a few prime examples) were a lot different, because it didn't show the impact of violence; instead, it glorified it. Schwarzenegger and Stallone and those guys were 'single person armies' who'd take out 100 guys without ever getting in danger, and their victims were always indiscriminate strangers. You never got to see the impact of it on either the 'hero' or the 'villain'. There was no psychology behind it. Just wack a whole bunch of guys without blinking your eyes. They were very macho and 'testosterony'.

(A notable exception to this rule was Die Hard, which featured a regular guy who wasn't looking to be a hero, who got hit and beaten severely, and who constantly was in danger and worried about how to get out. He wasn't the untouchable macho hero, but just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was in 2007's Live Free or Die Hard; hence why that film sucked so hard.)

A lot of those 1980's action movies also glorified, or were inspired by, the Reagan (Bush sr.) administration's foreign policies. There was a whole range of B-movies and some A-films (Top Gun comes to mind) about life in the S army that was about bombing, invading and taking over little, far-away countries with mostly brown-skinned people. Indeed much like reality.

There are other examples. But the point is - everyone blames entertainment for trends to follow afterward that they find are dumbing down the culture. [...] All media, these days. And I find that germane here for one reason, one thing makes me give it a serious consideration. It's that people don't look to politics and politicans to teach them anything. They want to be respresented by the people they think see the world the same way they do (like you said, the Beer-Drinker's Companion theory). And when people usually blame something for making the culture and children ill, they look to entertainment. It surely influences some people.

No doubt about the fact that media influence people. If they didn't, companies wouldn't spend billions of dollars a year to advertise their products in the media. But strange thing is, it doesn't influence all the people the same way. If it did, we would all react to a certain film or tv programme the same way, which we obviously don't. Some people get violent from playing violent video games, while other people get rid of their anger by playing the very same games. The same goes for movies. When I watch a violent movie, I have no intention of acting it out. But some people do. Obviously the film contributes to that, but it seems to me a lot also has to with the personality of a person, their surroundings, upbringing and social climate.

And I really do think politicians play a very big role in this. They lead the country, they're in the media and thus in the public's eye all the time. Their voices and opinions sound loud and clear in a society's national debates. It's like when you said politician's opinions on gay rights have an influence on how regular people look to homosexuality. The current anti-intellectual, anti-science atmosphere in the US has got something to do with people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party candidates being given so much attention in the media and being considered as serious contenders for the Senate races. Ever since Reagan, not knowing things became fashionable. "Facts are stupid things", he infamously said in 1988 at the Republican National Convention.

But now, it's a case of: they created the fire. And we feed it. Instead of recognizing how stupid things are now and hating it- we embrace it. We've grown to love it. We've been loving it ever since (as I said) the Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, and Farrelly brothers started it in the 90's. (But then again... critics were complaining that films were getting less sophisticated in the mid-to-late 80's with The Great Outdoors, the Bill & Ted series, Steven Seagal movies, and some Eddie Murphy films- I believe The Golden Child was considered something of a Gigli in its' day.)

People have been complaining about the stupidity and vulgarity of movies since the beginning of the movie. The 'common people' loved the nickelodeons, with their slapstick and chase scenes and mocking of authorities, while the middle and upper classes snubbed at it. To draw in the middle class, in the 1920's , movie companies started to make historical dramas, to add sophistication to their products. I do believe that, over time, this ideal of wanting to be 'better' than the lowest common denominator, has vanished. Not that bad, sleazy B-movies ever really disappeared. They were the craze of the youth audience in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. But the public in general didn't approve of it. And that's what has changed (what you pointed out).

It's not really only an American phenomenon (although everything is always 'bigger and better' in the US). You will see the same when you watch the 2009 documentary Videocracy, about Italy under prime-minister Berlusconi, ruling since the mid-1990s, whose countless tv stations and newspapers (he's a billionaire) have seriously damaged Italian society. In The Netherlands, tv has become more and more disgusting and celebrating dumbness and vulgarity since the introduction of commercial tv in the late 1980's. One of Holland's most popular tv programs today is a reality show about four teenagers from The Hague who are on vacation in Greece. Every week, the audience can see 30 minutes of them getting drunk, getting naked, making out with everybody and everything, trashing things, proudly displaying their ignorance.

I think it says something about our culture. And I think it says something about the reason why, in my lifetime, I will probably see the United States fade away as the world's dominant superpower; see the European Union dissolve into insignificance; and see China as the new major global force. Not a pretty picture, but a result of our way of life. Every great culture in history has gone under because of its own decadence. We're today's Rome.

[Goliath]

Jimmy Cartwer was also a shitty president.

I'm sorry, but Carter was a far better president than he gets credit for. He has the misfortune that the corporate media were always on the side of Reagan, and once unleashed by him when he was president, they continued to distort Carter's presidency.

Carter became president under very difficult circumstances. 'Watergate' had just happened, a president had to resign in disgrace to avoid impeachment, and Vietnam had ended just a couple of years before. The people voted for Carter because he was an outsider, and this hurt him in Washington. Congress would not work with him, not even most people in his own party. His ideas on human rights, decreasing America's military might, continuation of the détente in the relations with the Soviet Union, and renewable energy all were a threat to the interests of the status quo, and that's why they opposed him and he couldn't be very effective. Add to that the oil crisis of the 1970's and the hostage situation in Iran, and you'll see there were many external factors making his presidency more difficult that he couldn't directly influence. But he still got blamed for everything bad with America, well into George H.W. Bush's term in 1988!

Carter has to be praised for the historic Camp David Accords, when he brokered peace between Israel and Egypt. That's the only lasting peace between Israel and an Arab nation to this day. Carter was also responsible for the Panama Canal Treaty, which guaranteed that Panama would gain control of its own canal in 1999, after American control since 1903. He got a lot of flack for it from the right, who accused him of unpatriotic actions, but Carter persisted. He believed a people had a right to own their own sovereignty. That's why had cancelled American military, political and financial support of dictators all over the world. He broke off ties with Chilean dictator Pinochet, and ended support for the dictatorial Somoza family who had been ruling Nicaragua for decades due to American support. Instead, Carter backed the insurgent Sandinista rebellion (while Reagan financed the right-wing death squads known as Contra's against the legitimate Sandinista government in the 1980's). Carter also got SALT II to happen, a treaty between the US and the Soviets to reduce production of nuclear arms. And that kick in the economy in the beginning of the 1980's, ending the stagflation, when Reagan was in office? The belayed result of Carter's policies, yet never rewarded, nor recognized.

The Iranian revolution, headed by Ayathollah Khomeini, was actually handled pretty well by Carter. He initially reluctantly backed the Sjah, even though he was a ruthless dictator, because he felt the alternative would be much worse. But when it became inevitable that the Sjah had to go, Carter was wise enough not to persist in his support for this unpopular ruler, despite urgings from the political right. And when Khomeini became Iran's new leader, Carter resisted the foolish suggestions from the right to unleash a war with Iran. They wanted to invade Iran, but Carter remembered Vietnam and decided not to. When the American embassy in Teheran was being held hostage, Carter did his very best to get them out, up to the very minute that Reagan was being inaugurated, being on the phone with Iran even when he was on his way to the inauguration. But he didn't have a chance. Reagan's campaign team had already struck a deal with the Iranians: if they wouldn't release the hostages until Reagan got elected, the US would sell them a load of wepaonry --which they did, secretly and illegally, which came to be known as 'Iran-Contra' (because Reagan/Bush used the profits to finance the Contras in Nicaragua).

The more I read about Carter, the more respect and admiration I have for this man, both as president and out of office. From his days of president to his work for Habitat for Humanity, his work for the Palestinian's human rights, his criticism of the Iraq War and his Nobel Peace Prize, I think he's a great human being who deserves a lot more credit for his time in office. In fact, while not a great president (like Kennedy or Roosevelt), he certainly was America's last good president.

[Super Aurora]

Jimmy Cartwer was also a shitty president.

I'm sorry, but Carter was a far better president than he gets credit for. He has the misfortune that the corporate media were always on the side of Reagan, and once unleashed by him when he was president, they continued to distort Carter's presidency.

Carter became president under very difficult circumstances. 'Watergate' had just happened, a president had to resign in disgrace to avoid impeachment, and Vietnam had ended just a couple of years before. The people voted for Carter because he was an outsider, and this hurt him in Washington. Congress would not work with him, not even most people in his own party. His ideas on human rights, decreasing America's military might, continuation of the détente in the relations with the Soviet Union, and renewable energy all were a threat to the interests of the status quo, and that's why they opposed him and he couldn't be very effective. Add to that the oil crisis of the 1970's and the hostage situation in Iran, and you'll see there were many external factors making his presidency more difficult that he couldn't directly influence. But he still got blamed for everything bad with America, well into George H.W. Bush's term in 1988!

Carter has to be praised for the historic Camp David Accords, when he brokered peace between Israel and Egypt. That's the only lasting peace between Israel and an Arab nation to this day. Carter was also responsible for the Panama Canal Treaty, which guaranteed that Panama would gain control of its own canal in 1999, after American control since 1903. He got a lot of flack for it from the right, who accused him of unpatriotic actions, but Carter persisted. He believed a people had a right to own their own sovereignty. That's why had cancelled American military, political and financial support of dictators all over the world. He broke off ties with Chilean dictator Pinochet, and ended support for the dictatorial Somoza family who had been ruling Nicaragua for decades due to American support. Instead, Carter backed the insurgent Sandinista rebellion (while Reagan financed the right-wing death squads known as Contra's against the legitimate Sandinista government in the 1980's). Carter also got SALT II to happen, a treaty between the US and the Soviets to reduce production of nuclear arms. And that kick in the economy in the beginning of the 1980's, ending the stagflation, when Reagan was in office? The belayed result of Carter's policies, yet never rewarded, nor recognized.

The Iranian revolution, headed by Ayathollah Khomeini, was actually handled pretty well by Carter. He initially reluctantly backed the Sjah, even though he was a ruthless dictator, because he felt the alternative would be much worse. But when it became inevitable that the Sjah had to go, Carter was wise enough not to persist in his support for this unpopular ruler, despite urgings from the political right. And when Khomeini became Iran's new leader, Carter resisted the foolish suggestions from the right to unleash a war with Iran. They wanted to invade Iran, but Carter remembered Vietnam and decided not to. When the American embassy in Teheran was being held hostage, Carter did his very best to get them out, up to the very minute that Reagan was being inaugurated, being on the phone with Iran even when he was on his way to the inauguration. But he didn't have a chance. Reagan's campaign team had already struck a deal with the Iranians: if they wouldn't release the hostages until Reagan got elected, the US would sell them a load of wepaonry --which they did, secretly and illegally, which came to be known as 'Iran-Contra' (because Reagan/Bush used the profits to finance the Contras in Nicaragua).

I may of downgrade him worse than he deserve. He was much better than that and good point for all of the points you made except second last paragraph.

Not overthrowing Ayathollah Khomeini was a bad move. And because of that, we have the Iran we have now and is reason we have what you just said, the "Iran-Contra".

His reasoning by comparing it Vietnam is also stupid. You realize that during Vietnam war, we didn't invade north Vietnam. We just held back on defense which what drawn the war out.

Had we invaded North Vietnam, the war would of ended about 2 months instead of 7 or so years. My uncle who fought in Vietnam as well as many others Vietnam veterans, said same thing. Just like with Germany and Japan before, they could of fix Vietnam easily after the invasion and a better relation would of happen.

War is bad, no doubt, but some times war is inevitable to prevent future conflicts from happening and problems from happening. Sometimes sitting back and not doing anything is bad decision.

bottom line:
Carter was ineffective
Reagan was hypocritical