What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Battle of the Network Stars (1 Viewer)

What do you think?


  • Total voters
    14
My main problem with Warren is that she's a populist. Conservative populists like to demonize the government. Liberal populists like Warren like to demonize big business, banks corporations. In both cases the rhetoric is similar: the "little guy" is surrounded by dark and evil malevolent forces who secretly (or not so secretly) control things . No evidence beyond ominous anecdotes are ever presented. The usual cause for most calamities, which is that somebody inadvertently screwed up bigtime, is always rejected.

I used to like Warren. She was a frequent guests on Maher and other shows and I found her bright, witty and charming. But from the moment she ran for Senator her "us against the big guys!" talk became so repetitive that it began to sound like Bill O'Reilly - an O Reilly of the left.
Or we could call it greed in the bank instance.
no we really can't. All businesses are out to maximize profits. They will do whatever is legal in their field to do so. They have to ; they have quarterly figures to satisfy ,investors to please , employees to keep and hire. None of this is greed.
A corporation by definition is greedy - maximizing profits is their first and only goal. That doesn't mean it's illegal or evil, but just like a wild animal it's something that needs to be controlled.

 
If I also may say something, for tim's benefit: In my opinion, anti-populism often runs the risk of being monarchical or too distant from the people. It's like Bagehot or Burke. (Or now, Gruber or Mankiw). Too much.

Populism runs the risk of mobocratic impulses. Think de Tocqueville's concern about lockstep public opinion, opinion that drowns out true independent thought.

But fake populism, as you point out, runs the risk of the most cynical and tyrannical impulses. This is where I think people are having trouble with Warren. Right now, she is this: A rich progressive who lied about her heritage and has used Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, and an easy state for a Senate run as her long way to the top (if she wants to rock n' roll).
See the hypocrisy (even if it's there) doesn't matter to me at all. Take Al Gore- either he's right in his arguments about global warming or he's wrong. (Or he's mostly right or mostly wrong, etc.) But for years conservatives have been taking potshots at him or at Barbra Streisand for being hypocrites. Just as liberals ripped many in the Bush administration for being "chickenhawks". I hate all of that stuff. There are very very few consistent people in the world. What matters, at least to me, is whether or not your positions are right or wrong and what you're going to do about them. As far as how you live your personal life, or what you did before, unless it's especially heinous (like murder or rape or theft, etc.) I couldn't give a ####.

Now as to your first point- I get the resentment against elitism. This Gruber guy is only the latest in a long list of "know it all eggheads" that the public loves to target. But not me. I believe in listening to experts in all fields. I have tremendous respect for the Paul Krugmans of the world, and his arrogance has no affect on me whatsoever, though I acknowledge it's certainly there. We don't always have to do what the experts say. But we should always listen to them and respect their views, and not ignore them simply because they express disdain for those who they believe to be not as smart as they are.
I get what you're saying about ad hominem. I do not agree about hypocrisy. Free speech for me, but not for thee and all that. Do not lecture about greenhouse gases and use chartered jets to fly to every engagement so you can stuff your pockets with speaking fees. C'mon.

But the complaint about the people we're discussing like Gruber and Krugman is the potential for disdain of the democratic process. IOW, if you think you're that right, that certain you're correct, that infallible, you may dispense with checks and balances and process, like Gruber seems to have done with the CBO and the Exchanges.

Without getting too egghead-y myself, the process itself can be substantive. It's like Scalia talks about the Sixth Amendment. The process itself is the guarantor of the liberty. Some people feel they're up above it, or they game the system out of a sense of entitlement in one form or another.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My main problem with Warren is that she's a populist. Conservative populists like to demonize the government. Liberal populists like Warren like to demonize big business, banks corporations. In both cases the rhetoric is similar: the "little guy" is surrounded by dark and evil malevolent forces who secretly (or not so secretly) control things . No evidence beyond ominous anecdotes are ever presented. The usual cause for most calamities, which is that somebody inadvertently screwed up bigtime, is always rejected.

I used to like Warren. She was a frequent guests on Maher and other shows and I found her bright, witty and charming. But from the moment she ran for Senator her "us against the big guys!" talk became so repetitive that it began to sound like Bill O'Reilly - an O Reilly of the left.
Or we could call it greed in the bank instance.
no we really can't. All businesses are out to maximize profits. They will do whatever is legal in their field to do so. They have to ; they have quarterly figures to satisfy ,investors to please , employees to keep and hire. None of this is greed.
A corporation by definition is greedy - maximizing profits is their first and only goal. That doesn't mean it's illegal or evil, but just like a wild animal it's something that needs to be controlled.
Not disagreeing with you necessarily, but I just hate the word "greedy" used in this context. It's such a populist word. It makes one think of Scrooge McDuck, happily staring at his bank vault filled with gold coins and jewels, while out in the street the masses are starving. Although you write that it's "not evil", the fact is that whenever a politician says that the "banks were greedy" there is an implication that they are doing something wrong.

 
"I liked her but then she thought was a Cherokee and now I don't trust her".

Brilliant!
Not exactly what I said. I don't buy her story. I don't. I don't buy her folksy-ness. Look, if you like her, that's your thing. I'd be willing to support financial disclosures, prosecutions of banksters, and letting the car companies go under. If she's up for that, I'd support it. But I wouldn't vote for her, as there are plenty of candidates whose solutions to those problems I'd support even more.

 
Sure, lying about one's heritage to get ahead is just something I can't be charitable about. Especially if that lying allowed one to have financial advantages that other people didn't. If her parents lied to her, then I'm okay with that. I did indeed date a girlfriend from Kansas who looked absolutely nothing like a Native American but whose parents had told her the same thing. So...blond hair, blue eyes, Cherokee? But she indeed was, and had pictures of relatives to prove it, so my own experience with that casts a bit of doubt about that story and that statement.

I also have a weird thing where if you argue for higher tax rates against the rich, and you pull her kind of salary, you can write a check to the Treasury in any amount you deem appropriate (yes, it's ridiculous. Yes, it's also putting your money where your mouth is.) Also, you should generally stay away from industries that are engaging in practices you vehemently disagree with. I do so in my own personal life.

Well, and HellToupee answered much more succinctly than I did.

I'm still willing to meet her on prosecuting banker criminals and financial disclosures so that financial products are more easily understood. Her "28 pages for a credit card?" is indeed a memorable and accurate soundbite.
About the Cherokee thing, I'm the whitest guy you'd meet but I'm supposed to be 1/16 Cherokee. My father actually looked it but not me. If I had put Cherokee down somewhere I would resent being called a liar when that all I've ever known or believed.

You can't expect people to write a higher check to the government than they have to - even if they are advocating higher rates. Sorry, but that's a ridiculous standard to hold someone to.

It's also just as ridiculous to say someone shouldn't get a mortgage if they don't like all of a banks practices. She's not trying to destroy the banking system, just made it more fair.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I also may say something, for tim's benefit: In my opinion, anti-populism often runs the risk of being monarchical or too distant from the people. It's like Bagehot or Burke. (Or now, Gruber or Mankiw). Too much.

Populism runs the risk of mobocratic impulses. Think de Tocqueville's concern about lockstep public opinion, opinion that drowns out true independent thought.

But fake populism, as you point out, runs the risk of the most cynical and tyrannical impulses. This is where I think people are having trouble with Warren. Right now, she is this: A rich progressive who lied about her heritage and has used Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, and an easy state for a Senate run as her long way to the top (if she wants to rock n' roll).
See the hypocrisy (even if it's there) doesn't matter to me at all. Take Al Gore- either he's right in his arguments about global warming or he's wrong. (Or he's mostly right or mostly wrong, etc.) But for years conservatives have been taking potshots at him or at Barbra Streisand for being hypocrites. Just as liberals ripped many in the Bush administration for being "chickenhawks". I hate all of that stuff. There are very very few consistent people in the world. What matters, at least to me, is whether or not your positions are right or wrong and what you're going to do about them. As far as how you live your personal life, or what you did before, unless it's especially heinous (like murder or rape or theft, etc.) I couldn't give a ####.

Now as to your first point- I get the resentment against elitism. This Gruber guy is only the latest in a long list of "know it all eggheads" that the public loves to target. But not me. I believe in listening to experts in all fields. I have tremendous respect for the Paul Krugmans of the world, and his arrogance has no affect on me whatsoever, though I acknowledge it's certainly there. We don't always have to do what the experts say. But we should always listen to them and respect their views, and not ignore them simply because they express disdain for those who they believe to be not as smart as they are.
I get what you're saying about ad hominem. I do not agree about hypocrisy. Free speech for me, but not for thee and all that. Do not lecture about greenhouse gases and use chartered jets to fly to every engagement so you can stuff your pockets with speaking fees. C'mon.

But the complaint about the people we're discussing like Gruber and Krugman is the potential for disdain for the democratic process. IOW, if you think you're that right, that certain you're correct, that infallible, you may dispense with checks and balances and process, like Gruber seems to have done with the CBO and the Exchanges.

Without getting too egghead-y myself, the process itself can be substantive. It's like Scalia talks about the Sixth Amendment. The process itself is the guarantor of the liberty. Some people feel they're up above it, or they game the system out of a sense of entitlement in one form or another.
Fair enough. If they're caught doing that, (as Gruber may have been) they need to be pilloried. If they're caught breaking the law they need to be punished for that. I just don't like the attitudes that inevitably go with it.

 
Quez said:
The irony in Jeb vs Hillary. I would vote 3rd party guaranteed.
Sadly, I would be forced to vote for Hillary because this country would go to hell with Republicans controlling the entire government and stacking the Supreme Court.

 
HellToupee said:
You know its coming. The do-gooder elites are shining up Warren while ignoring she has lied her way through life. I think they'll snub Clinton to burn the party down with Warren
She is an elite liar? Sounds just like your favorite politician, you should love her.

 
Sure, lying about one's heritage to get ahead is just something I can't be charitable about. Especially if that lying allowed one to have financial advantages that other people didn't. If her parents lied to her, then I'm okay with that. I did indeed date a girlfriend from Kansas who looked absolutely nothing like a Native American but whose parents had told her the same thing. So...blond hair, blue eyes, Cherokee? But she indeed was, and had pictures of relatives to prove it, so my own experience with that casts a bit of doubt about that story and that statement.

I also have a weird thing where if you argue for higher tax rates against the rich, and you pull her kind of salary, you can write a check to the Treasury in any amount you deem appropriate (yes, it's ridiculous. Yes, it's also putting your money where your mouth is.) Also, you should generally stay away from industries that are engaging in practices you vehemently disagree with. I do so in my own personal life.

Well, and HellToupee answered much more succinctly than I did.

I'm still willing to meet her on prosecuting banker criminals and financial disclosures so that financial products are more easily understood. Her "28 pages for a credit card?" is indeed a memorable and accurate soundbite.
About the Cherokee thing, I'm the whitest guy you'd meet but I'm supposed to be 1/16 Cherokee. My father actually looked it but not me. If I had put Cherokee down somewhere I would resent being called a liar when that all I've ever known or believed.

You can't expect people to write a higher check to the government than they have to - even if they are advocating higher rates. Sorry, but that's a ridiculous standard to hold someone to.

It's also just as ridiculous to say someone shouldn't get a mortgage if they don't like all of a banks practices. She's not trying to destroy the banking system, just made it more fair.
Yeah, this supposed "hypocrisy" argument from conservatives about people who don't voluntarily pay higher taxes is incredibly silly. People support higher taxes for the wealthy because they think it would make for good policy if everyone did it, increasing federal revenue (or if you prefer, reducing federal debt) by the tens or hundreds of billions, amounts that could actually make a dent in the deficit or allow for new policy initiatives or whatever you prefer. It doesn't translate if it's just one wealthy person or a small group of wealthy people doing it. That's like saying you can't support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless you drive an electric car.

 
If conservatives hate government spending os much, they should just shred their SS checks.
Yeah, I've heard serious intellectual and influential libertarians personally complain about libertarians taking advantage of rent-controlled apartments.

Ayn Rand takes regular #### from the left for collecting SS benefits. This is not a new argument.

 
Holy cow I had no idea Liz Warren was only one year younger than Hillary. :lmao: She looks about 20 years younger.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If conservatives hate government spending os much, they should just shred their SS checks.
Yeah, I've heard serious intellectual and influential libertarians personally complain about libertarians taking advantage of rent-controlled apartments.

Ayn Rand takes regular #### from the left for collecting SS benefits. This is not a new argument.
I don't really care if Rand took social security or not because, well, how is Ayn Rand still a thing? But it's not really the same. People (most people, at least) don't lobby for higher taxes on the wealthy as a matter of principle. They see it as a partial solution to various problems, and that partial solution only comes to pass if all wealthy people are taxed at that increased rate so meaningful revenue is raised. That argument doesn't really work both ways.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If conservatives hate government spending os much, they should just shred their SS checks.
Yeah, I've heard serious intellectual and influential libertarians personally complain about libertarians taking advantage of rent-controlled apartments.

Ayn Rand takes regular #### from the left for collecting SS benefits. This is not a new argument.
Probably should stay off the internet too. The government had it's hands all over that.

 
timschochet said:
Why do you always change thread titles?
It is because he has once again made a horse's patootie out of himself in the OP and this is a pathetic attempt to save face. I don't why the mods keep allowing him to get away with this bait-and-switch on thread titles/subject matter. I would think this should merit some sort of time out, but I don't run things around here.
On the other hand, DD's use of it during the hockey playoff & stanley cup season makes a good argument in favor of being able to change thread titles.
Thread titles should be allowed to be changed, but not for the purpose of the OP avoiding ridicule when the result is just confusing

people and wasting their time :lmao: . I think most were aware that they were posting in a thread that started out and remained about hockey playoffs and stanley cup, while this was about a Hillary/Warren poll which is no longer the case
LOLs

Hockey playoffs & avoiding ridicule

you really get your panties in a bunch my little iStalker

 
HellToupee said:
You know its coming. The do-gooder elites are shining up Warren while ignoring she has lied her way through life. I think they'll snub Clinton to burn the party down with Warren
She is an elite liar? Sounds just like your favorite politician, you should love her.
I like honest people like Mitt Romney & Charlie Baker etc. Warren not so much.

 
About the Cherokee thing, I'm the whitest guy you'd meet but I'm supposed to be 1/16 Cherokee. My father actually looked it but not me. If I had put Cherokee down somewhere I would resent being called a liar when that all I've ever known or believed.
Most Indian tribes, including the Cherokee nation, have formal procedures in place for documenting one's heritage. You can call yourself whatever you want as long as you stick to stuff like "My dad used to say so and so" in informal conversation. But when you start using family mythology as means for advancing your career at the expense of others, I don't think it's asking too much to do your due diligence. Doing otherwise is at best lazy and more likely intentionally dishonest.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If conservatives hate government spending os much, they should just shred their SS checks.
They hate government spending; SS are private funds pulled from personal income and dedicated to people's savings to be held and used in later years in their name.
Fair enough.

How about just staying off the roads?
How many right-wingers do you know who oppose government spending on roads and highways? I can think of a few anarchist types who think that all roads should be toll roads, but that's a vanishingly small number of people.

 
If conservatives hate government spending os much, they should just shred their SS checks.
They hate government spending; SS are private funds pulled from personal income and dedicated to people's savings to be held and used in later years in their name.
Fair enough.

How about just staying off the roads?
My guess is they think government should stick to the roads, military and infrastructure.

And I'm guessing there's a liberal fringe that think people should be taxed whenever they use them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
About the Cherokee thing, I'm the whitest guy you'd meet but I'm supposed to be 1/16 Cherokee. My father actually looked it but not me. If I had put Cherokee down somewhere I would resent being called a liar when that all I've ever known or believed.
Most Indian tribes, including the Cherokee nation, have formal procedures in place for documenting one's heritage. You can call yourself whatever you want as long as you stick to stuff like "My dad used to say so and so" in informal conversation. But when you start using family mythology as means for advancing your career at the expense of others, I don't think it's asking too much to do your due diligence. Doing otherwise is at best lazy and more likely intentionally dishonest.
Is this just limited to Native American claims or all racial claims? Do black people need to do research to make sure they're really black?

 
About the Cherokee thing, I'm the whitest guy you'd meet but I'm supposed to be 1/16 Cherokee. My father actually looked it but not me. If I had put Cherokee down somewhere I would resent being called a liar when that all I've ever known or believed.
Most Indian tribes, including the Cherokee nation, have formal procedures in place for documenting one's heritage. You can call yourself whatever you want as long as you stick to stuff like "My dad used to say so and so" in informal conversation. But when you start using family mythology as means for advancing your career at the expense of others, I don't think it's asking too much to do your due diligence. Doing otherwise is at best lazy and more likely intentionally dishonest.
It would be weird to me to call up Indian tribes and start asking about it: "Hi, my name is Chad Stuart and I think I'm Native American." I guess it makes sense to check into before you start using it for the benefits but I think I may have put it down on my college application without much thought.

 
About the Cherokee thing, I'm the whitest guy you'd meet but I'm supposed to be 1/16 Cherokee. My father actually looked it but not me. If I had put Cherokee down somewhere I would resent being called a liar when that all I've ever known or believed.
Most Indian tribes, including the Cherokee nation, have formal procedures in place for documenting one's heritage. You can call yourself whatever you want as long as you stick to stuff like "My dad used to say so and so" in informal conversation. But when you start using family mythology as means for advancing your career at the expense of others, I don't think it's asking too much to do your due diligence. Doing otherwise is at best lazy and more likely intentionally dishonest.
Is this just limited to Native American claims or all racial claims? Do black people need to do research to make sure they're really black?
I don't know. Do people often walk around claiming to be black because 1/16th of their recent ancestors was black, while "looking" white in all other dimensions?

Edit: On reflection, yeah. If somebody looks obviously white but claims to be black because mom always said they had a black great-aunt back there somewhere, I would have a problem with that. Granted, I think affirmative action is a racist and absurd policy in the first place, so if people want to play games that highlight just how racist and absurd it is, I suppose I should welcome that, and I do to a degree.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If conservatives hate government spending os much, they should just shred their SS checks.
They hate government spending; SS are private funds pulled from personal income and dedicated to people's savings to be held and used in later years in their name.
Fair enough.

How about just staying off the roads?
How many right-wingers do you know who oppose government spending on roads and highways? I can think of a few anarchist types who think that all roads should be toll roads, but that's a vanishingly small number of people.
It was a joke, as was Slapdash's post I assume.

 
Is this just limited to Native American claims or all racial claims? Do black people need to do research to make sure they're really black?
I don't know. Do people often walk around claiming to be black because 1/16th of their recent ancestors was black, while "looking" white in all other dimensions?
Yeah, my kids look white. They have a black grandfather that they know, but I could imagine a situation where it was a slightly more distant relative that they never met. What's their due diligence responsibility in that situation?

 
If conservatives hate government spending os much, they should just shred their SS checks.
Yeah, I've heard serious intellectual and influential libertarians personally complain about libertarians taking advantage of rent-controlled apartments.

Ayn Rand takes regular #### from the left for collecting SS benefits. This is not a new argument.
I don't really care if Rand took social security or not because, well, how is Ayn Rand still a thing? But it's not really the same. People (most people, at least) don't lobby for higher taxes on the wealthy as a matter of principle. They see it as a partial solution to various problems, and that partial solution only comes to pass if all wealthy people are taxed at that increased rate so meaningful revenue is raised. That argument doesn't really work both ways.
Not necessarily. People promote progressive taxation from a position of "fairness" (not a fair tax) all the time. I bet if you scratch the surface a bit, you'll find some pretty influential economists that justify higher tax rates on principle, and not just on utility.

 
If the best dirt on warren is that she isn't 1/16 chippawah then she seems like a pretty good candidate to me.

 
If conservatives hate government spending os much, they should just shred their SS checks.
Yeah, I've heard serious intellectual and influential libertarians personally complain about libertarians taking advantage of rent-controlled apartments.

Ayn Rand takes regular #### from the left for collecting SS benefits. This is not a new argument.
I don't really care if Rand took social security or not because, well, how is Ayn Rand still a thing? But it's not really the same. People (most people, at least) don't lobby for higher taxes on the wealthy as a matter of principle. They see it as a partial solution to various problems, and that partial solution only comes to pass if all wealthy people are taxed at that increased rate so meaningful revenue is raised. That argument doesn't really work both ways.
Not necessarily. People promote progressive taxation from a position of "fairness" (not a fair tax) all the time. I bet if you scratch the surface a bit, you'll find some pretty influential economists that justify higher tax rates on principle, and not just on utility.
Good point. Still, the issue is finding the fairest way to distribute the burden. One or a few people taking it on themselves to pay higher taxes doesn't really alter the distribution.

 
If the best dirt on warren is that she isn't 1/16 chippawah then she seems like a pretty good candidate to me.
Are you aware of the fact that her brothers called her "Betsy" in a press release? Pretty sure the Constitution forbids women referred to as Betsy from holding public office. If it doesn't, it should.

 
My main problem with Warren is that she's a populist. Conservative populists like to demonize the government. Liberal populists like Warren like to demonize big business, banks corporations. In both cases the rhetoric is similar: the "little guy" is surrounded by dark and evil malevolent forces who secretly (or not so secretly) control things . No evidence beyond ominous anecdotes are ever presented. The usual cause for most calamities, which is that somebody inadvertently screwed up bigtime, is always rejected.

I used to like Warren. She was a frequent guests on Maher and other shows and I found her bright, witty and charming. But from the moment she ran for Senator her "us against the big guys!" talk became so repetitive that it began to sound like Bill O'Reilly - an O Reilly of the left.
Or we could call it greed in the bank instance.
no we really can't. All businesses are out to maximize profits. They will do whatever is legal in their field to do so. They have to ; they have quarterly figures to satisfy ,investors to please , employees to keep and hire. None of this is greed.
A corporation by definition is greedy - maximizing profits is their first and only goal. That doesn't mean it's illegal or evil, but just like a wild animal it's something that needs to be controlled.
Not disagreeing with you necessarily, but I just hate the word "greedy" used in this context. It's such a populist word. It makes one think of Scrooge McDuck, happily staring at his bank vault filled with gold coins and jewels, while out in the street the masses are starving. Although you write that it's "not evil", the fact is that whenever a politician says that the "banks were greedy" there is an implication that they are doing something wrong.
But isn't that exactly what the banks did? They were packaging a bunch of risky loans and selling them off for profit.

 
Quez said:
The irony in Jeb vs Hillary. I would vote 3rd party guaranteed.
Sadly, I would be forced to vote for Hillary because this country would go to hell with Republicans controlling the entire government and stacking the Supreme Court.
Pathetic.
Yeah, the GOP really needs to get their #### together.
Just (at least pretend to) hold your nose and vote for Hillary- that'll learn 'em!

 
Quez said:
The irony in Jeb vs Hillary. I would vote 3rd party guaranteed.
Sadly, I would be forced to vote for Hillary because this country would go to hell with Republicans controlling the entire government and stacking the Supreme Court.
Pathetic.
Yeah, the GOP really needs to get their #### together.
I think that both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush would make excellent Presidents. I wouldn't mind voting for either.

 
Quez said:
The irony in Jeb vs Hillary. I would vote 3rd party guaranteed.
Sadly, I would be forced to vote for Hillary because this country would go to hell with Republicans controlling the entire government and stacking the Supreme Court.
Pathetic.
Yeah, the GOP really needs to get their #### together.
Just (at least pretend to) hold your nose and vote for Hillary- that'll learn 'em!
Seriously though, if Hillary wins the nom, I'm never voting for her. She represents the worst of our country, those beholden to the wealthy and powerful. She's the status quo, and I think we're all pretty ####### fed up with the status quo.

 
About the Cherokee thing, I'm the whitest guy you'd meet but I'm supposed to be 1/16 Cherokee. My father actually looked it but not me. If I had put Cherokee down somewhere I would resent being called a liar when that all I've ever known or believed.
Most Indian tribes, including the Cherokee nation, have formal procedures in place for documenting one's heritage. You can call yourself whatever you want as long as you stick to stuff like "My dad used to say so and so" in informal conversation. But when you start using family mythology as means for advancing your career at the expense of others, I don't think it's asking too much to do your due diligence. Doing otherwise is at best lazy and more likely intentionally dishonest.
What % of people who check the ethnicity boxes on forms have ever actually gone through formal procedures for determining one's genealogy? Do you think it's even .1%?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Television viewers of the late 1970s who craved a combination of amateur athletics plus celebrity skin (mixed together with more cheese than a Wisconsin souvenir shop) had to look no further than Battle of the Network Stars. Inspired somewhat by ABC’s popular Wide World of Sports Superstars—an annual competition of professional athletes competing in a series of 10 different events unrelated to their own sport—the network set up a bi-annual “sporting” competition between various actors from series on the three major networks. The first installment aired in 1976 and garnered enough of a following that the series continued until 1985.

As the stars of Welcome Back, Kotter, CHiPs, Happy Days and other hits of the day fought it out in relay races, the obstacle course, the dunk tank, and Simon Says, veteran sportscaster Howard Cosell provided color commentary with the gravity usually reserved for an Ali-Frazier prize fight. But why would a TV star participate in such a spectacle, risking injury and mussed hair during their hiatus? One answer might be that they embraced the human drama of athletic competition. Another might be that this was a time when episodic television didn't have million-dollar salaries, and Battle offered some nice prize money: Each member of the winning team on the debut episode collected $20,000 (the Pittsburgh Steelers only earned $15,000 each for winning the Super Bowl that year). Join us, won’t you, for the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, the political incorrectness of the era, and some gratuitous swimsuit shots….

There was dissent in the ranks from the get-go. CBS team captain Telly Savalas (puffing away on a cigarette during an athletic competition, no less) raised a protest after the relay race. It seems that Ben Murphy (Gemini Man, better known for the “Riding with Death” episode ofMystery Science Theater 3000) stepped off of his line and accepted the baton several yards too soon from a struggling Joanna Pettet (Captains and the Kings). This was a “vulgar” and “flagrant” violation of the rules, according to Savalas, who points out that his Greek heritage makes him an expert on such things. NBC captain Robert “Go Ahead, I Dare Ya” Conrad is having none of it and challenges ABC captain Gabe Kaplan to a 100 yard run-off. Forget the 1984 Olympic boycott, this is sports tension at its finest, with Conrad threatening to pull his team from the competition amid a flurry of jaw-dropping ethnic remarks that would never get past the network censors today.

Adrienne Barbeau and Lynda Carter were a little nervous—but buoyant with hope—as they stepped onto the starting blocks for the swimming competition. Once they hit the water they lost that deer-in-the-headlights look and went for the jugular. Perhaps it was a little ###-for-tat after that contentious relay race, but it was clear that neither woman wanted to settle for the booby prize. Luckily they had plenty of support—just listen to those “yahoos!” from the hooters and hollerers in the audience!

Not to say that any of the other contests were necessarily frivolous, but one event that was played very seriously was the 3-on-3 football competition. Maybe it was because many of the male TV actors had played some ball back in the day and were eager to relive their wonder years. Whatever the reason, the men actually took the time to plan some game strategy and play with the fervor of old college pals engaging in a “friendly” competition at a reunion. Just watch Richard Hatch (the Battlestar Gallactica guy, not the Survivor guy) and Joseph Bottoms risk injury while making some very dramatic catches in this clip and see if they’re not envisioning themselves on the gridiron at the Rose Bowl.

Believe it or not, the Dunk Tank was an actual “athletic” event in BOTNS. Athletic is in quotation marks because there was some controversy as to the accuracy of the dunking mechanism. Skeptical TV viewers noted that the more comely the dunkee, the less accurate the dunker had to be when hitting the target. Notice how a pre-Mad About You Helen Hunt barely nicks the target but yet manages to send hunky Dean Butler swimming.

Meanwhile, Tom Selleck takes entirely too long to strip down to his swimsuit. (Preen much?) And Judy Norton-Taylor (eldest Waltons daughter) boasts some impressive biceps that even Michelle Obama would envy.

Much like on sister show The Superstars, the Obstacle Course was a fan favorite and a deal-breaker for the competitors involved here. Younger stars like Scott Baio and Kristy McNichol seemed to have an obvious advantage, but when similarly-aged celebs like Melissa Gilbert placed further back in the standings than actors twice their age, it gave viewers hope. Maybe youth wasn’t the be-all, end-all when it came to physical fitness…Perhaps if we elder statesmen watched our diet and exercised regularly we could compete with the best of them… Before you run off to the gym, here is Kristy versus Melissa:

The ultimate, decision-making event on BOTNS was the Tug of War. After all the preliminary competitions, the two teams with the most points went on to compete in this final event. The captain of each team decided who would play and in which order on the rope (there was a maximum weight limit of 900 lbs. on each side). Watch the fierceness of play involved in this event and you’ll see that tug of war can actually be dangerous (there have been contests in the past where players have lost a finger or two during play), which is why it has been banned as an event in many professional competitions.

If you’ve ever watched Battle of the Network Stars, here is the place to share your memories. If you’ve never seen this show (or even if you have), what current TV stars would you like to see pitted against one another in sweaty, bouncy athletic competition?

 
I don't think you could possibly get enough insurance to cover trying this again. God forbid Kat Dennings sprains an ankle and CBS has to eat four sweeps episodes of Two Broke Girls or something because she tumbled in the 4x4 relay.

But I'd love to see it.

Could be a USA vs. Canada theme, with all the shows shot up in the great white north (the CW superheroes) vs. Team America (mostly sitcom actors).
the threat of injury and litigation would definitely be a roadblock

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top