Aaron Sorkin's fast talkin snooze fest for liberals

[tokenuser]

Originally Posted by jtv

So earlier this week there was an official "Bash Atheism" day. I'm not sure if this was posted on that day, but I'm now pretty suspicious that this is all just an elaborate troll for that event.

Didnt hear about it ... must have been an effective campaign.

I guess even the home schooled holier-than-thou-have-you-acepted-jesus-as-your-lord-and-saviour types get summer holidays (or maybe it was a result of a summer bible camp).

[punk0]

Originally Posted by cool8man

It will throw a meaingless bone here and there (ie. calling liberals "losers") to create a facade of independence while going on to tear down the concept of American exceptionalism, deconstructing arguments against the slide to socialism, and ultimately blaming the oil spill disaster on evil Haliburton.

I can't believe I got roped into another one of these discussions, but here goes:
I was tempted to dissect the paragraph where you schooled us all on why America is the greatest (using no statistics btw), but I realized I would be wasting about a half hour of my life explaining things like why our elementary and high schools are turning out graduates that aren't ready for college, why these universities are so popular with people in less developed countries, and that the most advanced medical research isn't being done in the U.S. anymore because the people who want to cure cancer, AIDS, MS, etc. don't like how policies pushed by the religious right restrict research, so they move to Europe where they have more freedom. I especially don't want to get into that last one because I would first have to explain irony. It's scary that there are so many people out there who ignore numbers that keep getting worse and just keep waving the flag and complaining about liberals while the country they claim to love keeps heading for the cliff. As Ronald Reagan once put it, "Facts are stupid things." The decline in our school system is an embarrassment and both sides are responsible. Blindly cheerleading 'american exceptionalism' as an excuse to keep the status quo is downright dangerouse at this point in America's history. I'm not a fan of the left at this point either, but the way some people on the right need to make sure that everyone knows where they stand at all times borders on mental illness.

It annoys me to no end that I can't go to a forum for an entertainment based show like TRS without being hit over the head with someone's political agenda.

[axtimus_prime]

I regret even posting in this. This is why I don't read digg anymore.

[punk0]

I apologize. Complain-about-liberals-on-the-internet guy was right. Turns out Chief Justice John Roberts watched Newsroom the night before he ruled on The Affordable Care Act (that's Obamacare to the FOX fans out there).

[cool8man]

Originally Posted by jtv

So earlier this week there was an official "Bash Atheism" day. I'm not sure if this was posted on that day, but I'm now pretty suspicious that this is all just an elaborate troll for that event.

LOL. What? How did I "bash atheism" what?

Because I think that religion plays an important role in both the reason for this country's existence and our founding documents and therefore it's important for the executive office of our government to have faith? That means I'm bashing atheism? Okay....

Was not looking to insult the fragile ego, just making a point that people who bash faith in America seem to have lost the plot about America.

Originally Posted by punk0

the most advanced medical research isn't being done in the U.S. anymore because the people who want to cure cancer, AIDS, MS, etc. don't like how policies pushed by the religious right restrict research, so they move to Europe where they have more freedom. I especially don't want to get into that last one because I would first have to explain irony.

First of all Europe is not a country. So to say all of Europe has more freedom and all of Europe contributes more to medical research than America, even if it wasn't false it would still not refute the claim that America contributes more than any 1 country.

Isn't it interesting that all the people who subscribe to this notion that America isn't the greatest always fail to tell you which country actually is?

Does America contribute more to the world than the entire rest of the world put together? No, but who the hell is claiming that?

It's scary that there are so many people out there who ignore numbers that keep getting worse and just keep waving the flag and complaining about liberals while the country they claim to love keeps heading for the cliff. As Ronald Reagan once put it, "Facts are stupid things." The decline in our school system is an embarrassment and both sides are responsible. Blindly cheerleading 'american exceptionalism' as an excuse to keep the status quo is downright dangerouse at this point in America's history. I'm not a fan of the left at this point either, but the way some people on the right need to make sure that everyone knows where they stand at all times borders on mental illness.

Some numbers are getting worse and some numbers are getting much better. (Education vs. crime) You can always point to numbers that are worse and numbers that are better. And bringing the subject back to the point... This show picks and chooses it's facts to back up a liberal point of view.

The discussion is not about whether conservatives or liberals are correct. The discussion is about the fact that this TV show has a clear liberal point of view, but asserts to be above the fray. It's more the dishonesty and mixed message of the show that bothers me than the liberalism. The West Wing didn't pretend to be anything other than liberal idealism did it?

Originally Posted by punk0

It annoys me to no end that I can't go to a forum for an entertainment based show like TRS without being hit over the head with someone's political agenda.

It's a political show about politics. The only way you can talk about this show without realizing it has a political point of view is to be oblivious to it.


I think everyone on the right and left agrees that primary and secondary school education is a huge problem in America. Although they disagree on the reasons (I believe it is the teachers unions, inability to fire bad teachers, lack of school choice for most families). None of those problems apply to higher education where America excels. People come from all over the world to go to our universities. About 1/3 of the people that I knew at Georgetown & NYU were from outside of the US and most of them were not from 3rd world countries.

Originally Posted by damnedeyez

I think it's more likely you had already judged the show before you watched...which made you more sensitive to it when you watched it "against your better judgement".

I said as much. Obviously I watched the previews where they show the guy ranting about how much America sucks and I was turned off on the show and wasn't going to ever watch it. When I heard it was an Aaron Sorkin show (The West Wing) I said "oh okay that makes sense." Then I watched the TRS review where they asserted that the show was not a one-sided affair and that both conservatives and liberals could enjoy the show, so I gave it a chance. They really raved about how amazing the show was. I never claimed I went into the show blindly and even if I had, I know for a fact that I would have had the same reaction. My default position towards 90% of Hollywood entertainment is that this media has a liberal point of view (either extreme or moderate), so I rarely ever go into Hollywood entertainment expecting to agree with the political point of view presented.

Originally Posted by axtimus_prime

Honestly man it sounds to me like you saw Sorkins name and found any tiny scrap of evidence you could to decide you hated the show.

Not true. I was very excited to see The Social Network and I didn't see any political message in that film. I didn't like the fast talking style of that movie either though. I had problems with this Newsroom show long before I knew Sorkin was associated with it. A preview having Jeff Daniels telling off American students about how much America sucks isn't exactly a siren call to me. It was the content of the show that turned me off of the show, not the name attached. If anything it was the HBO association that mad me skeptical.

There are also many liberal films that I like (almost anything political with George Clooney seems to keep a level head).


BTW I should mention that this is not the first time in recent memory that HBO has played this game of pretending to be politically neutral and then dealing out a decidely liberal point of view. Recently I was fooled by HBO into watching a Reagan documentary where the first 2/3 of the film starts out extremely flowery only to take a sudden abrupt shift into outright bashing of Reagan in the last 3rd. It was a pretty transparent and dishonest piece of film making that further soured my opinion on HBO.

[tokenuser]

Originally Posted by cool8man

Because I think that religion plays an important role in both the reason for this country's existence and our founding documents and therefore it's important for the executive office of our government to have faith? That means I'm bashing atheism? Okay....

I'd like you to go and read those "founding documents".

I'll wait ...





OK. Done?

Tell me the religious parts of the constitution.





Still waiting. Or are yo still "thinking".

Here is some "knowing" instead ...

Someone else said it better than I, so I'll quote them.

Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:

No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This statement is simple and straight-forward, and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal. The clause simply means that no public position can be required to be held by any one of any religious denomination. It would be unconstitutional for there to be a requirement that the President by Lutheran, or even for the mayor of a small town to be Christian. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional for a law to forbid a Jew or Muslim from holding any office in any governmental jurisdiction in the United States. (This having been said, it should be noted that several state constitutions do have a religious test — specifically, they deny office to anyone unwilling to acknowledge God or a Supreme Being.)

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

Fleeing religious persecution was a reason for a specific group of immigrants to come to America, but it was over a hundred years later that the United States was formed, and there was a lot of immigration in the intervening years.

[cool8man]

And now stubadub. I didn't want to you to feel like I was ignoring you..

Originally Posted by stubadub

There is quite a bit that you've said that is very dismissive of those with a view different than your own. You have developed core beliefs from your family and living your life, while those on the other side with different views have been programmed by the media. Clearly their beliefs can't be the result of living a life and thinking for themselves, otherwise they'd share your belief system!

No I didn't say that. And I don't believe that either. Just because I described for you where conservatives get their POV from doesn't mean I'm telling you where liberals don't get their POV from. I would say that most liberals get their POV from their families as well, but they also get it from school and the media (news + entertainment). I think we can agree that the majority of colleges in the US are bastions of liberal thought.

We both accept the fact that we're talking generalizations about the population here, so obviously this isn't meant to describe everyone. But the way the generalization goes is that most young people come out of school with a very liberal mindset then get jobs and start families and become conservative over time. That's the only reason why I mentioned life experience as a general influence on conservatives. Young people tend to be more liberal, but their political persuasions change over time from their young ideal selves. Not for everyone, but for many.

Originally Posted by stubadub

How is this different than Limbaugh and Fox News in anything other than the side chosen? Example: Rush Limbaugh saying he hoped the president fails. Example: Fox News running the anti-Obama video multiple times last month on Fox and Friends.

It's not. If Rush Limbaugh wrote a TV show I think you would know what to expect from it. That's my only point about HBO. You know what their political leanings are and this show is consistent with that liberal point of view. The underhanded aspect of it is that it throws up a facade of being even handed.

Originally Posted by stubadub

Sarah Palin was a big part of the zeitgeist, substantially bigger than John Edwards. His story was a significant part of the book, but the public interest in that story does not compare to their fascination with Palin. Sure, HBO could have made a Game Change movie covering it, but it could not hope to garner ratings that could compare to the Palin movie (and as it was I think the Palin movie was probably a little late to the party).

This is such a catch-22, so because the media which includes HBO, made a much bigger deal out of Palin's relatively small foibles than Edwards outrageous scandals that means her story is more important to tell?

HBO puts on tons of political movies that aren't rating bonanzas and are on long after their expiration date (ie. "Too Big To Fail," "Recount").

By the way did you hear that they even bragged on directors commentary for Game of Thrones about using the George Bush head on a spike in one scene? HBO is what it is.

Originally Posted by stubadub

Agree to disagree. Sure, they have their token liberals present to allow the claim to be made that they are giving both sides their fair share. The problem is that in numerous studies Fox News viewers have consistently ranked as the most misinformed regarding news items of national interest, such as the Iraq War, health care reform legislation, global warming (we'll get to that in a second), etc. These subjects are the most heavily politicized, and the lack of understanding regarding concrete facts seems to fall in line with what is most beneficial for the party line. As far as I'm concerned this is far more deceptive and the political agenda is very clear.

Token or otherwise there is a debate on FNC that is decidedly absent on MSNBC. But this quote about FNC viewers being wrong gets to the heart of my point. There is this strong belief amongst liberals that there is a known truth and that you're either on the right side of that universally known truth or you're not. When the reality is that in most cases involving politics there is only a point of view or opinion on the issues.

The belief that there is a right or wrong opinion is what I find so irritating. FNC viewers aren't misinformed, they have a different opinion. It's liberals not acknowledging the validity or existence of that opinion which is frustrating to me.

(ie. The belief that climate change is caused by man is equally valid opinion to the belief that it has nothing to do with man and is a natural change.)

You have to remember, that people like me grew up in the 80's when the "scientists" were screaming about the giant hole in the ozone layer and how disastrous it was that man had caused this. Now they say the hole is gone. You can get a lot of hysteria out of the scientific community as well. And by the way if anyone is guilty of politicizing climate change issue it is former Vice President Al Gore.

I think that your story about your father is very interesting. Perhaps the key difference is that people of faith are more willing to accept there are some things in this universe that are simply beyond our control or influence. And so to sit around worrying about a changing climate that is most likely being controlled by forces far greater than man feels like the hubris of man. The difference is this idea that we have this responsibility to control the forces of nature rather than to submit ourselves to the hand of God.

[tokenuser]

Originally Posted by cool8man

You have to remember, that people like me grew up in the 80's when the "scientists" were screaming about the giant hole in the ozone layer and how disastrous it was that man had caused this. Now they say the hole is gone. You can get a lot of hysteria out of the scientific community as well. And by the way if anyone is guilty of politicizing climate change issue it is former Vice President Al Gore.

Wow. Just wow.

That "hole in the ozone layer" that is gone ... isn't.
Its shrunk, and when it closes it is thinner than it was.

Why? Because as a group, for the benefit of all mankind, we reduced chemical emissions. Not all of them, but changed the ones that caused the hole - largely refrigerants.

The hole now closes (it is now and always was, seasonal (I guess "God" does that). The ozone layer remains extremely thin though.

I think the big difference is that what you are referring to as an "opinion" is just that - an opinion, with an argument based on made false assumptions (ie the bible) accepted as evidence. Liberals can have faith. The are not incompatible, but they also accept sciecen, evidence, and proof as the basis of their opinions.

[stubadub]

Originally Posted by cool8man

The belief that there is a right or wrong opinion is what I find so irritating. FNC viewers aren't misinformed, they have a different opinion. It's liberals not acknowledging the validity or existence of that opinion which is frustrating to me.

If you are talking about matters of opinion then it's fine to differ. You can feel free to draw a different conclusion based on the facts all you want. We can both hear the statistics on the number of drug crimes committed in the US and you can leave feeling like we need to improve our enforcement and anti-drug education and I can leave feeling like it's indicative of how our drug laws are excessive and need to be scaled back. That's reasonable.

When you are talking points of fact then we should never disagree. A health care bill either gives coverage to illegal immigrants or it doesn't. If studies continue to show that the group of viewers that cite Fox News as their primary source of news are less likely to know which of the two claims accurately reflects the document in question, does that mean that Fox News is misinforming these viewers or do the misinformed seek out Fox News and then they cater their coverage to reflect that?

[cool8man]

Originally Posted by tokenuser

I'd like you to go and read those "founding documents".

I'll wait ...

OK. Done?

Tell me the religious parts of the constitution.

Still waiting. Or are you still "thinking".

Here is some "knowing" instead ...

Someone else said it better than I, so I'll quote them.


Fleeing religious persecution was a reason for a specific group of immigrants to come to America, but it was over a hundred years later that the United States was formed, and there was a lot of immigration in the intervening years.

As indicated by the Declaration of Independence, a most important founding document, the only thing that stands between freedom and a slide into despotism is the belief in God. If our rights do not come from God then they come from man, and a man can take rights away or deny their existence. The brilliance of the document is that it attributes the basic rights of all people to God, someone who can never be challenged or overthrown. If you eliminate God then there's nothing protecting us from the tyranny of man.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

The Constitutions very first amendment addresses the freedom of religion and expression, almost as if it was the utmost priority of the document:

Article I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But perhaps nothing illustrates the point better than these two pictures:






So just to recap the first colonists that settled in America came here in search of religious freedom, it was their primary motivation. When we declared our independence we did it in the name that all of our basic rights came from God instead of a king. When we wrote our Constitution the first and primary amendment immediately established our freedom of religion. And when we swore in our first President he placed his hand on a Bible and pledged "so help me God" in the name of God, then proceeded to actually kiss the Bible (something each new President continued doing for hundreds of years). But no, according to you religion wasn't a major driving factor in the founding and purpose of this entire country? Sure.


Our country is founded on a belief in a deity. It is nothing to be ashamed of that our country is largely made up of believers. And for this TV show to suggest American faith is a point of embarrassment is simply foolish and misguided. This is the nature of our country, it always has been, and it is a strength to be proud of not a weakness to be ashamed of.


It's interesting that you also framed the debate as "thinking" vs. "knowing" as this further illustrates my point about the liberal mindset of either ignoring or willfully invalidating any dissenting opinion. "Knowing" implies that there is only one acceptable point of view. When you come to this TV show with these assumptions of truth then of course there is no bias, they're just speaking the "truth." But there is no arbiter of truth, other than God, and the conceit that this newsroom is going to be that unbiased arbiter is laughable. It's conceited and misguided; the hubris of man.