Yes, I’m familiar with this line of reasoning, and pop culture is — in the end — that which tells us what we are and were…  But here’s the question…

At the RightOnline Conference in Orlando on Saturday, Whittle singled out the TV show Family Guy with particular disdain.

“Any audience of people that grew up with classical Superman automatically love this country because Superman is about the best America we can be, and when Superman was all over the pop culture we were a nation that loved this country,” he remarked. “Now, 20 years after the peak of Superman‘s popularity along comes Gilligan’s Island. That’s pretty neutral in terms of politics. Really about the only message you can get from Gilligan’s Island is if you want to get off the island all you have to do is kill Gilligan.”

“But if you’re a young person out there today and you can finish the theme song from Family Guy, then all the anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, anti-morality messages of Family Guy are in your head as completely and thoroughly as that theme song is.”

Doesn’t it seems arbitrary to select those three examples to define the culture at these three particular moments?

I suppose we drift from Superman to Westerns, which reinforce the same message… The apolitical commentary about Gilligan’s Island reminds me of the “Political Situation of Super Mario Bros” that was going around a while back — a definite message inherent in Super Mario Bros, which is that this is a dangerous world and we need to arm ourselves to the teeth against the Tyrannies of the World, and be prepared for Vigilante Justice…

There surely has to be a similar article on Gilligan’s Island.  The closest I see with a quick google search is … something from Mental Floss that touches upon the whole “Stranded on a Desert Island” concept.    BUT:

It aired for three seasons on the CBS network from September 26, 1964, to September 4, 1967

Okay.  1964 through 1967… Just for the Hell of it, if we shift through the pop culture debris of this period… urm… you know, there was a Batman show on the air at the time, which shed the dark “Vigilante” nature of Batman, and though it hearkened to a winks and nods with its Pop Art “Camp” aesthetic… that maybe could be seen as an attack on the hallmarks of the earlier Superman ethos —

As for Family Guy… no, I don’t like the show either.  Though, yes, there was  this spot on parody… and probably others that shift out of its malaise of pop culture referencing… but.  Hm.  Is he not going to go with South Park, out of an embrace of that old libertarian “South Park Republican” concept from a decade ago?

I like this response to this headline from the Alan Colmes blog…  “Those Who Supported Bush/Cheney Wars Have No Business Demanding Syria ‘Exit Strategy’ From Obama”…

Erm… yes they do.

The ones I don’t want to hear from are those that supported Bush/ Cheney and are now urging something more hawkish from Obama… see… Max Boot, et al.  (And is there a more appropriate name for someone than “Max Boot”?  But Slammer was already taken.)

To be fair, from what I see the “exit strategy” is… urm… we bomb some chemical weapons locations to “set Assad back” and “send a message”… and then… we stop.  There’s your Exit Strategy.

But, you know.  If Mary Matilan doesn’t have the credibility … howzabout… Jimmy Carter?

I mean… Jimmy carter is a Noble Peace Prize winner.

Granted, his peace prize was mostly just a political slap in the face of the Bush Administration, but nonetheless…

I’ll take a step back and allow you time to digest the meaning of that joke.

Curious comment here:
What would a day in Portland be like if there were no protest for or against something?
Weirdly dismissive.  Like, they’re protesting guppy furs or something, and not military action abroad.

Also.

Paul Waldman at The American Prospect points out that nearly every American president eventually bombs something. And on average, we’ve bombed another nation at least once every 40 months since 1963. “If you’re wondering why people all over the world view the United States as an arrogant bully, reserving for itself the right to rain down death from above on anyone it pleases whenever it pleases, well there you go.” [via MoJo]

Interesting to note that the National Review has a cover story honoring the Presidency of Dwight D Eisenhower.  Interesting because the magazine, and the “Conservative Movement” it spear-headed, was set up to define the term “conservative” as something other than Dwight D Eisenhower.   It’s possible they realized that Eisenhower was big on “Regime Change” after all.
Interesting too as a few years ago, the magazine had a cover feature honoring one Ayn Rand… interesting, because this violated a different part of their policing of boundaries, as the magazine always wanted to define Ayn Rand and the John Birch Society as outside the pale.

So…?