[Peace-discuss] The times they are not a'changin'

[C. G. Estabrook]

Sorry I didn't make myself clear to you, John.

F. Rich is awful as a pundit - he's a propagandist, as D. Green makes clear.

But Rich is right to note the qualities of Mad Men.

There were dramatic television series before 2010, just as there were English 
language stage plays before 1610.



On 7/25/10 3:18 PM, John W. wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 10:39 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Absolutely correct.
>
>     The awful Frank Rich however illustrates the Peter Principle: he started as
>     theatre critic and here leads with an observation on one of the best recent
>     dramatic television series (a literary form that is ca. 2010 CE roughly
>     where the English language stage play was ca. 1610 CE) - "Mad Men."
>
> So what, then?  The "awful" Frank Rich should restrict his obervations to the
> plays of Shakespeare?  Is THAT the way in which he has risen to the level of his
> own incompetence, Carl - by citing modern cultural analogues which his American
> readers might  actually be familiar with?
> And wait.....there was no such thing as a "dramatic television series" before 2010?
>
>     Do not miss the beginning of their 4th season tonight at 9pm on cable
>     network AMC. The episode Rich refers to - & which he saw an advance
>     screening of - takes place at Thanksgiving 1964.  Not the least of the
>     attractions of the series is how well they've captured the mise-en-scène -
>     clothes, settings, language, etc. (I was there: I know.) And even the
>     politics - Vietnam has actually (accurately) been mentioned already.  --CGE
>
> Now you appear to suggest that "Mad Men" might be worth watching.  Which is it,
> Carl?  We should watch it, but the "awful" Frank Rich shouldn't make reference
> to it?
>
>     On 7/25/10 7:24 AM, David Green wrote:
>
>         Both Republicans and Democrats desperately want race to be the issue.
>         Sherrod
>         got caught in the middle of that:
>
>         "This country was rightly elated when it elected its first African-American
>         president more than 20 months ago. That high was destined to abate, but we
>         reached a new low last week. What does it say about America now, and
>         where it is
>         heading, that a racial provocateur, wielding a deceptively edited video,
>         could
>         not only smear an innocent woman but make every national institution that
>         touched the story look bad? The White House, the N.A.A.C.P. and the news
>         media
>         were all soiled by this episode. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans, who
>         believe in fundamental fairness for all, grapple with the poisonous
>         residue left
>         behind by the many powerful people of all stripes who served as
>         accessories to a
>         high-tech lynching."
>
>         http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25rich.html?ref=opinion
>
>         The title applied to the article is somewhat ironic, considering the
>         imminence
>         of Vietnam in the summer of 64, and the (unmentioned) wars now.
>
>         DG
>