Have you read the books, McG? If you have, you'll have noticed the many times that characters cannot find success within themselves - but are successful when they work with others - TikTok can't get out of a well alone, but can with help etc. There are literally dozens of examples. Great for demonstrating how co-operation works in a teaching unit.
And besides, I think all this supposition that "The Wizard of Oz" is a parable for anything has about as much weight as all that's been written about the parables in "The Lord of the Rings." I seriously doubt that since Tolkien denied any parables that Baum had any intention of parables either.
I've not read all of them, no.
You mean the Wizard of Oz isn't Big Brother after all? (Off topic, again).
ehBeth wrote:Have you read the books, McG? If you have, you'll have noticed the many times that characters cannot find success within themselves - but are successful when they work with others - TikTok can't get out of a well alone, but can with help etc. There are literally dozens of examples. Great for demonstrating how co-operation works in a teaching unit.
To harken back to the one I am most familiar, Dorothy has the power within herself to get home. As she had the entire time. All she needed was the knowledge that she could do it for herself. I am sure we could go back and forth on this topic, but you seem to be better read on this and I will bow to your experience.
(And as far as supposedly only conservative ideals, a small government is a good thing -- too bad they don't know that in Washington right now).
A link to a blog disguised as a website which is actually put up by a rock station. Real authoritative references would be appreciated.
Also, has anyone ever read H. G. Wells "The Open Conspiracy" written in 1928? Wells advocated "benevolent" world government which would subordinate the personal life to the creation of a world directorate. This shows up in "The Shape of Things to Come" with the technocracy described in the book. Didn't seem to fit in with his "free love" advocacy.
One thing I can't understand is how the show is so comfortable showcasing some of the most provocative, and sometimes, downright embarrassing elements of the liberal establishment. To be sure, they dress the issues well, making the outcomes seem more acceptable. But they are still controversial to some and abhorrent to others. (Examples are taken from the 2nd Season, merely because that is the only one I have access to at this time.)
Take for example: Season 2, Episode 14. 5 DEA agents are abducted in Colombia. President Bartlet initially demonstrates resolve (a tactic to make him, a Democratic president, appear strong on national defense), but by the end of the episode the special operations mission goes awry and he ends up caving in to the terrorists by arranging the release of the prisoner they demanded. How can anyone take pride in that idealogy? Oh, the going is tough, let's give them what they want. Where is the line drawn?
2nd example: Season 2, Episode 4. The White House hires a Republican attorney, Ainsley Hayes, she initially voices strong disagreement towards the administration, but after taking the job she is rapidly "converted" and finishes the episode by dressing down two of her friends, who are conveniently making outrageous and immature comments about the Democrats, telling them that these people are "extremely qualified, sincere, patriots," (producer using juxtaposition to say that these Republicans are not).
3rd example: Season 2, Episode 7. Sam argues passionately and "righteously" that the Republicans are a party of gay bashers. His listener is a gay Republican, and though I commend Aaron Sorkin for including the point to consider when the gay congressman states that he believes in many Republican values and shouldn't be defined just because he's gay, he still leaves the main point which is that the Republicans are a party of gay bashers.
I could go on and on, but I'll stop here to see if there are different takes to the same episodes. I was not surprised that there was no one who argued that the "West Wing" was not a leftist lecture. There is usually at least one person, sometimes quite bright who would say "no, there is no evidence of liberal bias there." I've just rewatched the 2nd Season and I'm humorously amused at how much propaganda is packed into the scripts. I take consolation in the fact that throughout the show President Bartlet and his staff is shown, despite the best efforts of the producers, to be weak on defense, rabidly anti-gun, pandering to groups of leftist voters - labor unions, african-American organizations, environmental lobby - and most of all far, far left. All of these were considered some of the key facts that worked against Kerry in the last election. It seems that "The Left Wing" is about on par with many other aspects of the Democratic Party in being out of touch with the voters of the 2000's.
is this a popular program? (I don't watch much commercial t.v. so I don't keep up on this sort of stuff.)
Very popular program, dyslexia, but I seldom watch it. There's enough political machinations revealed in the daily news for the show to be revealing about anything. Of course, it's about a President who's a Democrat and is slanted towards the left. It's like any TV program that's fictional -- don't like the message, ignore it. If you're afraid it's brainwashing anybody, that's a control freak issue. If it's "out-of-touch" with the 49% of the voters, it's viewership is still quite high (millions watch it all over the world). I think worrying about these things and trying to analyze them is the workshop of the desperate.
(And, again, the point is where is the creative talent to produce a program with a rightwing slant? In a cave?)
Quote:3rd example: Season 2, Episode 7. Sam argues passionately and "righteously" that the Republicans are a party of gay bashers. His listener is a gay Republican, and though I commend Aaron Sorkin for including the point to consider when the gay congressman states that he believes in many Republican values and shouldn't be defined just because he's gay, he still leaves the main point which is that the Republicans are a party of gay bashers.
I could go on and on, but I'll stop here to see if there are different takes to the same episodes. I was not surprised that there was no one who argued that the "West Wing" was not a leftist lecture. There is usually at least one person, sometimes quite bright who would say "no, there is no evidence of liberal bias there." I've just rewatched the 2nd Season and I'm humorously amused at how much propaganda is packed into the scripts. I take consolation in the fact that throughout the show President Bartlet and his staff is shown, despite the best efforts of the producers, to be weak on defense, rabidly anti-gun, pandering to groups of leftist voters - labor unions, african-American organizations, environmental lobby - and most of all far, far left. All of these were considered some of the key facts that worked against Kerry in the last election. It seems that "The Left Wing" is about on par with many other aspects of the Democratic Party in being out of touch with the voters of the 2000's.
Apparently, aside from the color of the night sky, you and I agree on one other thing...Sorkin's genius.
I don't think we'll get far on the 'what is biased' and 'where is the center'. You use the phrase 'far, far left' above but there is almost nothing of a far far left in American political discourse, and has not been for decades. You've met how many Leninists this week?
But let's just take your third example. Republicans as the party of gay bashers. If one were to suggest that gay bashing sat moreso in the policy or rhetorical territory of either Republican or Democrat, where would you put it?
It doesn't exist LW. Lefties have a monopoly on creativity.
No, I do think it does exist somewhere. It must be fear that the product will not make it on TV. Considering the fiction on POX TV, you'd think they'd be able to come up with something. They could call it "The Broken Wing."
Well, Blatham, it's a matter of filtering the material on "The West Wing" through a rightwing bias which is naturally going to magnify anything like gay bashers are likely to be Republicans to all Republicans are gay bashers. I really don't believe either. I think most gay bashers are apolitical sociopaths, maybe even anarchists at heart. Of course, there are going to be some who are Bible-thumping nutcases who think they are "doing God's will." It's not something that can be catergorized but as a theme for a TV show can be provocative and draw audiences. That's the purpose of a TV show, at least on commercial broadcast TV, to draw people to watch the show and buy the products advertized (they actually pay fo the show, after all). So as far as financing these shows (getting commercial sponsorship), it's back to the myth that there is no production financing for a fictional political show that is bent towards the right.
More than one of the characters on "Law and Order SVU" seems to me overtly conservative but I can't make anything but a general comments as I only occassionally watch that show.
LW
Sure. All generalities are false (except this one). But to suggest that the present Republican party in America and the present Democrat party in America are even remotely the same on the homosexuality issue (in policy and in rhetoric) would be very dim. One need only go to the RNC site, or any state RP site and compare policy statements with that of the other party. Or, one might just read a paper.
Quote:I think most gay bashers are apolitical sociopaths, maybe even
Code:anarchists
at heart.
Ok LW that's just about enough out of you, fargin' bastich!!!!
Exactly. Where's there's smoke there's fire (in the case of Clinton, there was not fire in the case of the cigar because, hopefully, it wasn't lit). A fictional show is going to make extrapolations which can be interpreted in many different ways. Those with a far right agenda are going to likely watch "The West Wing" and exaggerate the message to suit their own personal biases. I suppose Murdock won't put up any money for a TV series which is markedly right? It is curious that FOX network's show are aimed, as it seems, at young liberals.
So you haven't bashed a gay today, dys?
