 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 14, 2014 - 11:28 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dan Hobgood
(Member)
|
Gotta say, that speech is laughably inane.
Dan
Yes, Ayn Rand wasn't even mentioned once!
Gimme a break.
Happily, I long ago wrote a much better rant, Dana (albeit not for an audience of film aficianados, as you'll see). Incredibly, I didn't mention Ayn Rand once in it, either (as if I think citing or mentioning her is imperative . . . ).
_________
I don't know who would endorse this character's worldview, but it's the exact sort of vomit that someone like myself finds putrid.
Let's start with how Daniels' character criticizes "liberals." Funny that they're referred to as "liberals," as there's nothing truly liberal, or progressive for that matter, about them. They support taxes, and not just high taxes, but high, graduated taxes that punish people for success. (It's the equivalent of charging rich people $500 for a sandwich just because, well, they can afford it!) Moreover, "Liberals" force people from their homes against their will, order farmers to burn their own crops, promote the spread of fatal diseases to prevent alleged environmental damage there's no actual evidence of, award money to women if they'll have children they can't afford, release dangerous criminals from prison for weekend getaways, etc.
Yet the main complaint Daniels' character has about them is that they're--losers??? W.T.F!!!
Meanwhile, Aaron Sorkin has--of course--made the scene's would-be-capitalist sound like a verbally-challenged buffoon for Daniels' character to scorn. Alas, Sorkin's facts are wrong (and, thus, Daniels' with him). How many free countries are there really in the world? Nope, not 200. Sorry, not 100, either. It's not 20, or even 10. Real answer: THERE IS NO FREE COUNTRY ON EARTH. They're all to some degree un-free, thanks to those wonderful "losers," the "liberals." Why is America not #1 in all those desirable qualities Daniels' character runs his mouth about? It's because we're cutting corners and corners on "freedom, and freedom." Nonetheless, Daniels' character continues to spew his nonsense about "morality" and helping "the poor" (all of whom own the cars, the televisions, the phones, etc., that not a damn person on earth had 150 years ago, but that free enterprise has made bountiful).
Here I was thinking Daniels would never again play a character as inane as the one who believed Aspen was a French city in Dumb and Dumber. (At least in that role he wasn't actually spreading misinformation.)
Here's what's moral (as opposed to what Daniels' character implies is): Freedom. Self-interest. Profit-motive. So on and so forth. Two centuries ago, the framers of this country dedicated their lives to creating a sanctuary from government oppression and for an individual's pursuit of his own happiness and wealth. America was and remains the greatest country on earth because of the near-perfect template they left to us, and the world, to follow. Yet, look what we've done to it! America is still the greatest country on earth, but it's nowhere near as great, or good, as it used to be. That's because of bad thinking like Aaron Sorkin's, not in spite of it. Accordingly, Sorkin should stick to writing movies about Internet fanboys because he stinks at everything else. The American President was a ridiculous, uneven, White House-turned-soap-opera melodrama with only one classy thing about it: the dazzling and Oscar-nominated Mark Shaiman score. The West Wing was, well, The Left Wing. Then there's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. (You can't even remember it, can you?)
A truly superb clip would be the one I heard Rush Limbaugh play on the radio in honor of Milton Friedman on what would have been his 100th birthday. Rush may overrate Friedman, but the excerpt of his appearance on a Donahue episode from the 70s was absolutely great. Donahue, effectively playing the role of an Aaron Sorkin, grilled Friedman about free/capitalist society. I was quite impressed by how simply and succinctly Friedman shut that fat blowhard up and made him look like the fool he was. (At least at that time, a Donahue would give air time to somebody like Friedman, to address such weighty material. I doubt you'll see such a person discussing such a subject on Maury or Dr. Phil anytime soon. Contemporary hosts are too busy figuring out paternity for the welfare gals.)
I've just looked up the Friedman clip on YouTube, and it's there ("Milton Friedman [on] Greed"). As it turns out, it's shorter than the clip from The Newsroom. It's a credit to good thinking, then, that it takes Friedman less time to educate than it does Sorkin and Daniels to obfuscate.
Dan
P.S: I just watched "The American Taliban" clip. It's not as bad as the earlier monologue--but it's not good, either. The biggest problem is that it is a "straw man." Daniels alludes to a number of people and beliefs whom and which I would not associate with the Tea Party at all. The Tea Party is not, nor should be, about religion. In fact, it's supposed to be about a lot of those side-screen bullet points Daniels' character endorsed. It's about limited, affordable government consistent with the defense of individual rights. (This said, I absolutely endorse a law requiring photo-identification for voting. Why would anybody oppose the idea, unless to make fraud easy? I dispute the numbers regarding how much voter fraud Daniels said there's been, but, regardless, it's about preventing possible fraud to the most reasonable extent. If you don't have a photo ID, just go get one, especially if voting is so important.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 14, 2014 - 1:47 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dana Wilcox
(Member)
|
Gotta say, that speech is laughably inane.
Dan
Yes, Ayn Rand wasn't even mentioned once!
Gimme a break.
Happily, I long ago wrote a much better rant, Dana (albeit not for an audience of film aficianados, as you'll see). Incredibly, I didn't mention Ayn Rand once in it, either (as if I think citing or mentioning her is imperative . . . ).
_________
I don't know who would endorse this character's worldview, but it's the exact sort of vomit that someone like myself finds putrid.
Let's start with how Daniels' character criticizes "liberals." Funny that they're referred to as "liberals," as there's nothing truly liberal, or progressive for that matter, about them. They support taxes, and not just high taxes, but high, graduated taxes that punish people for success. (It's the equivalent of charging rich people $500 for a sandwich just because, well, they can afford it!) Moreover, "Liberals" force people from their homes against their will, order farmers to burn their own crops, promote the spread of fatal diseases to prevent alleged environmental damage there's no actual evidence of, award money to women if they'll have children they can't afford, release dangerous criminals from prison for weekend getaways, etc.
Yet the main complaint Daniels' character has about them is that they're--losers??? W.T.F!!!
Meanwhile, Aaron Sorkin has--of course--made the scene's would-be-capitalist sound like a verbally-challenged buffoon for Daniels' character to scorn. Alas, Sorkin's facts are wrong (and, thus, Daniels' with him). How many free countries are there really in the world? Nope, not 200. Sorry, not 100, either. It's not 20, or even 10. Real answer: THERE IS NO FREE COUNTRY ON EARTH. They're all to some degree un-free, thanks to those wonderful "losers," the "liberals." Why is America not #1 in all those desirable qualities Daniels' character runs his mouth about? It's because we're cutting corners and corners on "freedom, and freedom." Nonetheless, Daniels' character continues to spew his nonsense about "morality" and helping "the poor" (all of whom own the cars, the televisions, the phones, etc., that not a damn person on earth had 150 years ago, but that free enterprise has made bountiful).
Here I was thinking Daniels would never again play a character as inane as the one who believed Aspen was a French city in Dumb and Dumber. (At least in that role he wasn't actually spreading misinformation.)
Here's what's moral (as opposed to what Daniels' character implies is): Freedom. Self-interest. Profit-motive. So on and so forth. Two centuries ago, the framers of this country dedicated their lives to creating a sanctuary from government oppression and for an individual's pursuit of his own happiness and wealth. America was and remains the greatest country on earth because of the near-perfect template they left to us, and the world, to follow. Yet, look what we've done to it! America is still the greatest country on earth, but it's nowhere near as great, or good, as it used to be. That's because of bad thinking like Aaron Sorkin's, not in spite of it. Accordingly, Sorkin should stick to writing movies about Internet fanboys because he stinks at everything else. The American President was a ridiculous, uneven, White House-turned-soap-opera melodrama with only one classy thing about it: the dazzling and Oscar-nominated Mark Shaiman score. The West Wing was, well, The Left Wing. Then there's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. (You can't even remember it, can you?)
A truly superb clip would be the one I heard Rush Limbaugh play on the radio in honor of Milton Friedman on what would have been his 100th birthday. Rush may overrate Friedman, but the excerpt of his appearance on a Donahue episode from the 70s was absolutely great. Donahue, effectively playing the role of an Aaron Sorkin, grilled Friedman about free/capitalist society. I was quite impressed by how simply and succinctly Friedman shut that fat blowhard up and made him look like the fool he was. (At least at that time, a Donahue would give air time to somebody like Friedman, to address such weighty material. I doubt you'll see such a person discussing such a subject on Maury or Dr. Phil anytime soon. Contemporary hosts are too busy figuring out paternity for the welfare gals.)
I've just looked up the Friedman clip on YouTube, and it's there ("Milton Friedman [on] Greed"). As it turns out, it's shorter than the clip from The Newsroom. It's a credit to good thinking, then, that it takes Friedman less time to educate than it does Sorkin and Daniels to obfuscate.
Dan
P.S: I just watched "The American Taliban" clip. It's not as bad as the earlier monologue--but it's not good, either. The biggest problem is that it is a "straw man." Daniels alludes to a number of people and beliefs whom and which I would not associate with the Tea Party at all. The Tea Party is not, nor should be, about religion. In fact, it's supposed to be about a lot of those side-screen bullet points Daniels' character endorsed. It's about limited, affordable government consistent with the defense of individual rights. (This said, I absolutely endorse a law requiring photo-identification for voting. Why would anybody oppose the idea, unless to make fraud easy? I dispute the numbers regarding how much voter fraud Daniels said there's been, but, regardless, it's about preventing possible fraud to the most reasonable extent. If you don't have a photo ID, just go get one, especially if voting is so important.)
**yawn**
Perhaps you should go back to proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jerry Goldsmith was the best film composer ever, based on the inarguable and self-evident tenets of Objectivism. I always loved that one the best. Your politics, not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan, have you lost your mind? Political commentary...here? Please stop. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 15, 2014 - 7:34 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dan Hobgood
(Member)
|
Dan, have you lost your mind? Political commentary...here? Please stop. Thank you.
Actually, quite the contrary--and more should follow my lead, intellectually.
David, if political commentary is banned from this site, a clip of political commentary from a show of this kind has no place on this forum.
That said, I wish the FSM folks would re-consider this ban, anyhow. Increasingly, people avoid "controversial" discussion for fear of discord, offense, etc. Are our ideas and life ultimately better for that? Perhaps with more philosophical and jurisprudential discourse, the world would be a better place.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
David, if political commentary is banned from this site, a clip of political commentary from a show of this kind has no place on this forum.
That said, I wish the FSM folks would re-consider this ban, anyhow. Increasingly, people avoid "controversial" discussion for fear of discord, offense, etc. Are our ideas and life ultimately better for that? Perhaps with more philosophical and jurisprudential discourse, the world would be a better place.
Dan
Point understood; it's tough to comment about a political-based show without getting political, but people have done pretty well in this thread so far, so it is possible. As for lifting the no-politics ban, that is Lukas' rule that I simply enforce, and I don't ever see that changing. There are lots of online locations to discuss these matters. FSM just isn't one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
