From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Murphy Murphy Murphy
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:50:06 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
:eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
:> Could someone please define how one can "lose" such a fight? Is it:
:> a) when fictional character gives humorous retort to which real person
:>    does not respond?
:> b) when more people will watch fictional character and pay attention to
:>    character and not real person [I wonder what that says about our 
:>    culture]?
:> c) when fictional character challenges real person to a debate and real
:>    person declines? [No, I'm not addressing Bill Clinton. :) ]
:> d) when fictional character will have an entire 30-minute episode devoted
:>    to slandering real person?
:> e) when more people on the network will pay more attention to such a
:>    "fight" between fictional character and real person than the issues
:>    that should be involved with political debate?
:
:Easy answer to all - look at the original post:
:>fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
:>
:> What does the Vice President do the next day?  Ignore it?  Say, "well, 
:> we're over-looking the issues here?"
:> NO!!!!!!
:> He's still spending time on it!
:
:That the Vice President and President of the United States of America
:can go out in public and spend time expressing their concern about the
:antics of fictional characters is how they can lose. The more time they
:spend, the worse they lose. It's important, as it shows a level of
:frivolousness unworthy of anyone to be trusted with such high office. 
:
:In George's case, maybe it's the halcion talking? Seriously. When he
:ought to have been talking about Lithuanians, he was talking about
:broccoli! Or the comment, "Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren't
:they?" at Auschwitz, or "Hey, hey, nihaoma.  Hey, yeah, yeah.  Heil,
:heil -- a kind of Hitler salute," to some surprised tourists, or any of
:a hundred others. No wonder he's shying away from debating, with his
:bizarre syntax: will you listen to the state of this fool's brain?
:
:And Dan's comments on Mars alone show that he really is the idiot most
:everyone takes him for. This could have been no slip-up, like '94
:instead of '96: this was genuine ignorant foolishness. 
:
:Fiction: made up, not real!

Obviously, that explains what the Bush-Quayle strategy should be. The
more they talk about their opposition -- whether real or fictitious --
they lose either because they'll be painted as "mudslingers" or
"trivializing real issues." Maybe that's the reason why Bush won't agree
to the debate schedule...

This however gets to be real interesting when it comes to the "it's only
a TV show" excuse. If Bush/Quayle praised "Life Goes On" as a TV show
filled with their concept of Traditional Family Values, then are you
also writing off the show since it's "fiction"? What about episodes 
regarding date-rape and premarital pregnancy/abortion? How come so many
kids can identify the cartoon Camel on the cigarette boxes, or want Nike
shoes or Wheaties so they could "be like Mike [Jordan]"? How can you
explain the violence that occurs after movies concerning gangs or black
poverty and empowerment are released (e.g. _Colors_)? Do we write these
off just because they're entertainment? How about those actors and
actresses who become "experts" in farmers' plights or homelessness or
life-threatening diseases who go to Congressional panels to testify
about their knowledge (Sally Field, Jessica Lange, Tom Cruise)? Why
should they be taken seriously if they're "only playing fictional
characters?"

Television and movies are very powerful influences on children nowadays.
It becomes very interesting that we as real people can't criticize
fictional characters just because their fictional. I agree that this is
entertainment, but when entertainment starts advocating a moral or an
agenda, there is no more entertainment. People identify stars by their
roles, and some may want to emulate those roles. (Ask 6-10 year-olds who
think they're the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!)

Oh, by the way, ask Iowans back in 1986 when the Presidential campaign
started vis-a-vis the 1988 election. It may not be a blatent screw-up
as you might think. (That is, people generally don't all of a sudden run
for President on the drop of a pin. It takes planning and scouting the
territory.) In 1996, if Bush wins, we'll have another 2-term President
stepping down and both parties will have their prime candidates running
for the position in 1994. 

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my life.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush