bleeding heart

No one believes this silly dichotomy of meaning, including yourself. You know that "alarmist" is not a values-free qualifier, mere reportage, an apt descriptor: it is explicitly, intentionally used as a sneering pejorative. That you've used it against me (show me a single "alarmist" comment I've ever made on the subject....just one) tells me that it is used dishonestly, all-encompassingly, and by definition is used as a "propaganda term" in your words.

It seems that almost everybody liked it very much. I'll have to assume it's me (and my wife, god bless her) rather than the movie. But then, I despise--really despise--Forrest Gump, and everybody seems to enjoy that one, too.

Excuse me, big guy, but you have called me a liar repeatedly....which I take now as an open concession of your own dishonesty. According to your own formulation, here. I have called you a liar over only one point: your insistence that I hadn't proven, with citation, that little fact which got you so exercised elsewhere. (Shattering your worldview and all, I guess, about "left" and "right,"). Get it straight, bucko, or move on to lesser opponents.

The first two Spiderman movies; Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Superman (seventies one).......

Directly before you begin the slide to the political left.

I'm afraid that the promiscuous overuse of the word "alarmists" is inextricably married to the use of the word "deniers." There's no going back now, unless both agree to drop it. PResumably, sometime around a successful peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians.

Ah. so when I ask "who?" the answer is, "a few specific posters." Just to clarify what we're talking about here. So, there we go: asked and answered, I guess.

I see you read "pro-bono internet commissar" on some blog, liked it, and so have chosen to...well, "parrot it." Again and again. I'm also fascinated by the remarkable contemporary phenomenon: this entity called "the left" is brimming with "propaganda," while this thing called "the Right" is free from it, inclined only towards plain reportage and objective truth. Meaning, for one, that you opposed the Iraq War, of course...the extreme propaganda surrounding that little war of aggression, some it actual Soviet-style, has been well-documented. And this is actually rare, this indulging in crude, totalitarian-style propaganda: contemporary propaganda, as the term is generally used, is essentially the invention of the US and Great Britain, around the First World War (and coinciding, predictably, with the rise of modern advertising techniques). It is relatively sophisticated...as your own dewy-eyed adherence to it attests. That is to say, it is the pro-Western State and military objectives that gave rise to the most effective propaganda...not the Soviet-inspired left, as some ahistorical, less-than-thoughtful folks like to think. But at any rate, any publication like The Nation, which appears to me quite solidly in support of the centrist wing of the Business Party, could hardly be termed "Communist." I thought the accurate use of political words was important to you?

But when someone uses the word "denier," it doesn't automatically follow that they are doing so precisely for the reason you state. So again, I asked a perfectly reasonable question, in response to a declarative statement: Who said that the climate models are infallible?

How do you know Business Insider wasn't mistaken? Are you sure that your...surety....isn't tainted by partisan emotions? At any rate, you keep insisting I'm parroting lies...and you've allowed the possibility that I'm not consciously doing so. I'll take such small favours where I can find 'em.

This all sounds about right.... Indeed, Spielberg pretty much always works in archetypes...usually oversimplistic ones, which I think can detract from the movies. But it worked well here. And further, the original plan was to have a lot more of the shark; the mechanical problems determined that it had to go usually unseen. This turned out to be highly effective. No, I had no idea.

Who said they are infallible?

And the bet is on!

I do think I'll check it out. Thanks. To its credit, it's my favourite Spielberg movie.

Michael Hardner just expressed something not completely dissimilar to what you're saying; and while I didn't (here) express it, I also agree that conspiracy theorists (even if their "facts" are so often lunatic rantings) tend often to be inclined towards an idea of openness and accountability--and towards the notion of the need for systemic, institutional critiques of Power. So I don't know to whom exactly you're aiming your (incorrect) critique. But having said what I have here about them, the conspiracy theorists are not exactly necessary. With work and diligence, a person can perform institutional critiques of Power without screeching about Bush destroying the WTC, or about rich liberals trying to control us through lax abortion laws.

Yes, but inextricably bound up with the fact that it was brand spanking new. I have a lot of gaps in film knowledge...but 1970s American cinema is my favourite era. The consensus is that it was revolutionary, and it certainly feels that way to me.

I often like the superhero movies; so I don't know if I'm simply growing weary, or if they're rather starting to stink. In the past month, I've watched Thor, which I found mediocre; The Avengers, which was only slightly more entertaining to me; and Captain America, which I am thisclose to saying that it sucks.

I don't think this quite covers it. The charge is that the administration has waffled, and profoundly, on the matter of the attack. It was a terror attack, it wasn't, we don't know, etc, with multiple officials giving varying and even contradictory remarks. Now, the justification for this has been either a) justifiable confusion or b)caution until the facts were in. The critique has been that the administration made a lethal security error, and are covering their behinds. Personally, I can't say for sure that the critique is true. But I strongly suspect it is. At any rate, I don't believe this sort of thing affects elections at all. Which begs some serious questions, I think. Not just about the Democrats, but about the reality show called "campaign politics" itself.

More than fair, by definition.

Yes, the biggest and oldest conspiracy theories tend to have a beautifully bipartisan cast to them. Right and left, together at last! You'll note that Alex Jones, for example, remains a social conservative (abortion as a liberal conspiracy is part of his realm of ideas) and yet all manner of disaffected lefties are drawn to him.

I"m ambivalent about this charge. To clarify: I've considered exactly the same thing. And in a way, you could be right: even the best of these shows are arguably slightly overrated...but nevertheless, the programs you've mentioned --each of them, without exception--is superior to the overwhelming majority of programming that's ever been on television. In other words, and in my view, the real Golden Age of television is now, and began somewhere in the mid-to-late 1990's. It's not that your critique is definitely off the mark. Like Isay, I've felt the same way, at least from time to time. But their quality must be, by definition, relative. And there's no way that "Adam 12" (or for that matter, "Law and Order") are of the same calibre as "The Wire" or "Breaking Bad." Not in writing, not in acting, not in the meaningfulness of character and story. Still, probably an even better example of what you're getting at is in "Sons of Anarchy." I"m addicted to the show, and watched the first two seasons in about two weeks. However, the self-evident need to have a whole lot of "Holy Crap!" moments begins to weigh it down, after a while. "Big Love," ostensibly a quieter family drama, had the same problem: a relentlessness to the Big Events that wears the whole thing a bit raw. Still, to harp a little on my point, it's got to be seen relative to tv programming generally: so what's better than these dramas of the past fifteen years?

Pretending? It's the case, kraychik. Now, you can pronounce all you want about potential conflicts, about contradictory elements...that's fine. What you can't argue are the facts. Libertarianism did originate with the Left. Predating right-wing libertarianism by a really long time, in fact. That you don't like this truth doesn't affect anything, except in that it produces a sort unpleasant spectacle in watching you squirm about. No, this is your demon. You're the one who is saying history is false if it does not align with your preconceived notions. At bottom your conception of "the Left" is far too one-note, far too married to what you view as doctrinal necessity. I'm sorry, fellow, but you have been proven demonstrably wrong in this case. We're not in the realm of opinion and analysis, but in proveable historical facts.

All unquestionably true, but first-hand accounts can be monumentally mistaken as well. So the complex dance of how we tell stories about ourselves is a moebius strip.

Given the system, I'd say more Jean than Harper (if blame is indeed to be laid, on which I'm agnostic).

So I've heard.