41 replies to this topic

[Drew]

Jazzergold, on Aug 26 2004, 09:16 PM, said:

By the way, for B5 fans, a few weeks ago, I just discovered that Jerry Doyle (who played Garibaldi) has his own talk radio show.

Does he actually have his own show? I accidentally ran across him filling in for someone else (Laura Ingraham?) a couple weeks ago. I was rather surprised, although I know that he did run for Congress in . . . .2002? He related a few amusing B5 stories, too.

[Hambil]

Drew, on Aug 26 2004, 05:44 PM, said:

Delvo, on Aug 26 2004, 07:25 PM, said:

Apple has appointed a liberal politician with no business or computer-development experience or training to its board of directors, . . .

C'mon! Al Gore invented the internet!  

Quote

Regrettably, there are a number of other examples of political myths, such as the fiction that Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. As UCLA professor Phil Agre showed, the first article on Gore's original statement - "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" - glossed it into "father of the Internet" and "took credit for the Internet". From there, the plausible but probably overstated claim that Gore's legislative accomplishments were key to the development of the Internet was quickly paraphrased into him saying he "invented the Internet," a phony implication that he took credit for a technical feat.

Quote

During the 2000 election Vice President Al Gore was repeatedly misquoted as having suggested that he "invented the Internet." His actual words were: "During my service in the U.S. Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." While Gore's claim was probably overstated, he did provide early support for the network infrastructure that became the Internet.

Despite numerous corrections to the record in the past several years, Gore continues to be misquoted. As Bob Somerby pointed out on his Daily Howler Web site, Washington Times political correspondent Donald Lambro wrote in a recent story that Gore "said during the 2000 campaign that he had 'played the lead role' in creating the Internet." Ironically, not only did Lambro misquote Gore, but also he did so in a column about exaggerated claims by politicians.

[Drew]

Well, duh. I know that. It was a joke.    (And also a way to identify the politician Jobs appointed to Apple's board of directors.) I loves me my Macintoshes regardless of the weirdness of Steve Jobs.

[Robert Hewitt Wolfe]

Delvo, on Aug 27 2004, 12:03 AM, said:

I never defined Andromeda as primarily liberal during the 1.5-2 seasons that I watched, so it's a non-issue to me.

I'm with Delvo here.  I don't consider Andromeda particularly liberal, at least during the time I was running it.  I always strove to make Andromeda more complex than that.  We had a diversity of political viewpoints represented on the Andromeda's writing staff and I'd like to think that that diversity was reflected by the final product.

[Jazzer]

To Drew and anyone else interested:  

Yes, Jerry Doyle really has his own talk radio show.  At first, I had a hard time getting the image out of my head of visualzing Garibaldi doing talk radio.  But I enjoy his show.  Actually, in a lot of ways, he's not that different from the character of Garibaldi.  

The first time I heard Jerry was also when he sat in for Laura Ingraham.  I can stream his show for free through www.kkar.com  from 10:00 p.m. to midnight CST.  If you have pop-up blocker software, you may have to temporarily disable it to get the stream started.  He has a 3 hour show live from 9:00 p.m. to midnight CST.  But I haven't found a website that streams all 3 hours for free.     

Jerry is also on www.talkradionetwork.com but you have to have a paid membership to listen through the website.  

Jerry also has a new website of his own:  www.jerrydoyle.com   I think the website has been up less than 2 weeks.  But if you're interested in paying for a membership there, you might want to wait a while.  I found out the hard way that they still haven't got some bugs ironed out yet in their streaming process.  The streaming isn't consistent yet in how it works.  But the site is new.  I guess it takes some time to discover and fix bugs.

[Hambil]

Robert Hewitt Wolfe, on Aug 26 2004, 08:05 PM, said:

Delvo, on Aug 27 2004, 12:03 AM, said:

I never defined Andromeda as primarily liberal during the 1.5-2 seasons that I watched, so it's a non-issue to me.

I'm with Delvo here.  I don't consider Andromeda particularly liberal, at least during the time I was running it.  I always strove to make Andromeda more complex than that.  We had a diversity of political viewpoints represented on the Andromeda's writing staff and I'd like to think that that diversity was reflected by the final product.

I am sure I am seeing things through my own rose colored glasses, and I ment no offense. I think all great shows are complex - and Andromeda 1-2.5 was a great show.

But, it was a Roddenberry show. I assume his vision, which has been much talked about, had considerable influence.

1) The Vedran females are smarter than the males.
2) The Vedran ruler is always a female.
3) The word commonwealth itself has political connotations:
This term is applied to governments which are considered as free or popular, but rarely, or improperly, to an absolute government. The word signifies, strictly, the common well-being or happiness; and hence, a form of government in which the general welfare is regarded rather than the welfare of any class.

These are just a very few things I picked up on while watching the show.

Edited by Hambil, 26 August 2004 - 10:31 PM.

[Meepski]

When breaking up everyone's entire view on life into one of two camps, you are going to have an awful lot of approximation going on.  When elections come around we're kind of forced to make it fit, at least in the U.S., but when you try to apply it elsewhere (like entertainment choices) you pretty quickly come to realize its limitations.

For instance, if you are Conservative/Republican primarily because of their views on social issues (abortion, for instance) then Star Trek's humanist philosophy may bother you.  On the other hand, if you are primarily a Fiscal Conservative, then Trek's essentially post-economic universe probably won't bother you much.

Of course, the above example introduces another choice between a mere two camps, though this time at a slightly more precise level.  Take this down another twenty levels or so and you could maybe start to get into farily predictable groups, entertainment viewing wise.

[Bouree57]

I don't consider myself to be a hardline conservative. But I'm definitely more conservative than liberal.

I watch(ed) Andromeda through season 4. Season 5 is a toss up until I've seen the season opener. I watch Enterprise and have watched all ST series. I find some of the liberal views annoying but for the most part I just consider it "getting someone else's perspective".  

I never paid much attention to BTVS until I saw Firefly but WB has recently started airing the series (in order) from the beginning so I've been watching that.

I watch CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, ER and I used to watch The Guardian before it was cancelled. I, on occasion, get to watch a rerun of Early Edition on PAX but that is rare unfortunately.

I also watch Survivor, the Weakest Link and Jeopardy because I like game shows.

The only other thing I watch (besides the news) is Firefly and sadly that's only on DVD now.

I haven't noticed any overwhelming sense of liberalism in any one show though ER did do a story arc on war in 3rd world countries. Carter (conservative) and (liberal) Kovach (sp?) had an interesting confrontation that was obviously written by a liberal. I would have prefered the confrontation had ended with more of a draw (Carter didn't argue very well) out of a sense of realism but it wasn't annoyingly bad.

-- B

[Ogami]

Hambil wrote:

Many TV shows, if not most, seem to hold pretty liberal view points. Andromeda, for example, was a show crammed with liberal ideas.

I'll agree with that. Fourth season Dylan Hunt looks a lot like John Kerry. Dylan flees the Magog and escapes to another universe, Kerry flees in his Swift Boat while the others are under fire, same thing.  

Star Trek is infamously liberal to the point of being compared to communism.

Next Generation took both sides of many issues, take abortion, for example. In an early episode, Dr. Pulaski and Riker destroyed clones of themselves because they wanted to retain "control" over their reproductive rights. Then in a much later episode, Data disobeyed orders to protect some "X-O Comps" because they were unable to speak for themselves and needed their right to exist defended.

Lesbian kisses have become common, even in prime time.

Anything for ratings, but it doesn't shock anymore. When Britney and Madonna did their over-hyped kiss, the reaction was boredom and annoyance, the shock value is gone.

Given the fairly hard-line views I've seen expressed by many here, how do you find shows to enjoy?

I've learned to tolerate the liberal view in a lot of things in television and movies. Without seeing the opposition, how would one know where to stand? That's why I don't comprehend the liberal attitude of censoring and blacklisting that which they disagree with. No one banned moveon.org and their zillions of ads, but let a tiny group of Vietnam Vets put up a commercial or two, and the entire left mobilizes to silence them. The left even files lawsuits to prevent Ralph Nader from being on state ballots, this is the supposed party of tolerance and open-mindedness.

Tolerance and open-mindedness are not a monopoly of the left. That's why I can watch liberal entertainment. But the censoring mentality, the McCarthy mentality, is on the other side. Not mine.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 27 August 2004 - 07:16 AM.

[Jazzer]

There was one ST:TNG episode where they encountered a genetically engineered society living inside of a dome on an otherwise uninhabitable planet.  Geordi ends up working with their engineer to help make repairs to the dome.  At one point, Geordi asks their engineer if someone like him (born blind) would have been allowed to be born and she answers "No."  Geordi replies something like "Who gave them the right?"  (to decide if someone like him should be born or not).  Personally I applauded the scene, but I was also very surprised at the time that they would dare air something so politically incorrect.

[Ogami]

That's right, I had forgotten about that one.

Next Generation was very politically correct, but other views would creep in from week to week.

My personal favorite was how the Borg ushered in the era of "the Federation is at war!", which was a refreshing change from the first season. The dovish angle ceased to exist for the most part. Not everyone in the universe likes you, don't be an aggressor but at least be prepared was the change in motto.

-Ogami

[Lord of the Sword]

I gave up on Andromeda a long time ago, during Season 3 I think.

As for the West Wing...as soon as Martin Sheen started running his Liberal mouth, actually thinking he was the President and we all should listen...I tuned out on that show. I refused to give his show any ratings.

As for will and grace. Never watched an episode.

The shows that air on TV that I watch are:

Alias

Smallville

Rescue Me

The Shield

Other then that, I have my DVD collection.

[Drew]

Hambil, on Aug 26 2004, 10:28 PM, said:

But, it was a Roddenberry show. I assume his vision, which has been much talked about, had considerable influence.

I think the "Roddenberry vision" is nothing more than shrewd marketing.  

[Jazzer]

In an episode of ST:Voyager called "Initiations", there was what I thought was a sickeningly politically correct scene when Chakotay was trying to talk a young Kazon out of shooting down Chakotay's ship to earn some rite of passage.  Chakotay said something like: "I'm a gentle man.  I studied hard to earn this uniform."  

Give me a break!  Part of the purpose of Star Fleet was also military when needed.  Chakotay had to do more than study to qualify as Starfleet personnel.  Plus, he had been a member of the Maquis who rebelled against the Federation to fight the Cardassians.  The scene was an attempt to portray a man as having a much more feminine side.  But it wasn't quite consistent.  

Then a few seasons later in another episode called "The Fight" they showed that Chakotay liked boxing as a hobby.  So much for being a "gentle man".  I guess they decided the earlier version of him was too much of (get ready, I'm about to utter something politically incorrect) "gasp!"     a "girlie man".

[Hambil]

Ogami said:

But the censoring mentality, the McCarthy mentality, is on the other side. Not mine.

McCarthy was a republican.

[Drew]

Hambil, on Aug 27 2004, 09:26 AM, said:

Ogami said:

But the censoring mentality, the McCarthy mentality, is on the other side. Not mine.

McCarthy was a republican.

Also from Wisconsin. We're nothing if not diverse.  

[sierraleone]

Jazzergold, on Aug 27 2004, 10:22 AM, said:

In an episode of ST:Voyager called "Initiations", there was what I thought was a sickeningly politically correct scene when Chakotay was trying to talk a young Kazon out of shooting down Chakotay's ship to earn some rite of passage.  Chakotay said something like: "I'm a gentle man.  I studied hard to earn this uniform."  

Give me a break!  Part of the purpose of Star Fleet was also military when needed.  Chakotay had to do more than study to qualify as Starfleet personnel.  Plus, he had been a member of the Maquis who rebelled against the Federation to fight the Cardassians.  The scene was an attempt to portray a man as having a much more feminine side.  But it wasn't quite consistent.  

Then a few seasons later in another episode called "The Fight" they showed that Chakotay liked boxing as a hobby.  So much for being a "gentle man".  I guess they decided the earlier version of him was too much of (get ready, I'm about to utter something politically incorrect) "gasp!"     a "girlie man".

I don't really recall the episoid other than some young Kazon doing something bad, so I don't recall that scene, I'll have to take your word for it.

But to me it hardly matters. First of all, being aggressive in atheltics, does not neccessarily make some aggressive in their personal life, or professional life outside of sports. Also, being gentle, does not preclude the possibility of being tough when needed/when you feel a cause.

So I don't think its paradoxical for someone to essentially think themself gentle, but play aggressive sports and rebel in a cause they think is just.

[Hambil]

sierraleone, on Aug 27 2004, 09:26 AM, said:

I don't think its paradoxical for someone to essentially think themself gentle, but play aggressive sports and rebel in a cause they think is just.

I catch flies and set them free.

But, for the right cause (of which there are very few) I'd kill another man.

[Cyncie]

I'm pretty much in the center, politically. I lean left on some issues and right on others. I don't have problems with humanist philosophies in Star Trek or other shows, and I don't have a problem with shows expressing a POV. I do have a problem with the fact that many in charge of our TV, movies, and music seem to be totally oblivious to the lives most of us are leading, and that they apparently have an underlying assumption that those of us in "fly-over country" are narrow minded, out of touch, backward, unenlightened, twenty-something beer guzzling channel surfers (insert additional stereotypes here).

That, I think, reflects in the shows, as traditional families and monogamous relationships are often depicted as basically dysfunctional underneath, teens are expected to be sexually promiscuous, all religious people are judgmental, con artists or cult leaders, and people who shop at Wal-mart are a joke. In order to enlighten the masses, they feel free to "push the envelope" as much as possible. Then, of course, when the public pushes back, they cry "censorship".

As a result, I don't watch many of the entertainment shows, and it's very rare for something to become "must see TV" for me.  So, I'm not so much reacting against left leaning viewpoints (some of which I might actually agree with) but, rather, a perceived overall disconnect in the entertainment media's basic underlying assumptions about their audience.

~Cyn

Edited by Cyncie, 27 August 2004 - 12:14 PM.

[G1223]

I can say speaking of other venues. I would not have gone to see the Dixie Chicks I would have stopped watching Tim Robbins (If I did not already due to Robbins lack of appeal to me  or the fact I am not much a CW fan) becasue to me they push their politics out there.  

I pay to be  entertained not to hear a political speech.  Unless it's a movie that deals with political issues. Then I have to accept the speech as part of the film. I do not know of a conservative who has done such things while doing a performance.

Do I agree they have the right to their POV's  yes but I have the right to refuse to go or have pay for them. It's one of my problems with the "Art" shows that a person takes a rosary and drops it into a jar of urine. The person was given over $10,000 to make art. This cost at most $75 in supplies. So where is the rest of the money?