Sorry,
Steven
Just ouf of curiosity, would the reaction be different if DeLay’s response had been “I take personal offense at that cheap shot” rather than citing the alleged damage done to “public discourse”?
I for one would regard it differently, yes. I’d still think he needs a thicker skin, but a response like that wouldn’t reek of hypocrisy – bashing judges one day, making velied threats like “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior”, then whining about how “trivialization of the sensitive issue of judicial security represents a reckless disregard for the suffering initiated by recent tragedies and a great disservice to public discourse”.
DeLay is a corrupt politician and possibly a criminal. To the best of my knowledge, the writers of the show are not. Therefore, there is no equivalence as you’ve stated.
In other words, have you lost your goddamned mind?
How now? One of the main sticking points of the Schiavo fiasco was the idea that the Congress might gain some power to overrule the courts and leave federal judges with far less power to do their jobs. Saying that the judges would one day “answer for what they have done” is not a veiled threat of violence. It is DeLay’s statement of his (albeit misguided and repugnant) belief that the judges ought to be reprimanded for what he sees as their arrogance.
Ridiculous though said opinion may be, DeLay still has a right to express it, whether his right-wing nutjob supporters decide to read a call to violence in to it or not.
Indeed. And those critical of him have an equal right to point out the ramifications of what he said, whether intended or merely foreseeable.
My point is that cheap potshots are unbecoming, no matter how deserving their target may be.
Have the producers of “Law & Order” single-handedly damaged the fabric of American life? Have they committed a wrong anywhere near on par with what DeLay has done? Of course not.
But I hold that it’s little potshots like this that continue to contribute to the breakdown of real political debate and the continued dominance of blind partisanship. DeLay is such a despicable man, and there are so many awful and completely truthful things that could be said about him. Little throwaway jabs like the one we’re discussing here contribute only to the growing din of political background noise in this country that is unproductive in bridging cultural gaps and moving the country forward past the “culture war.”
It gives the right something to point at as an example of the “liberal bias of the media” without adding anything productive to the political dialogue. I guess I just find it a bit dishonest, and I don’t like political opinions close to my heart associated with dishonesty.
No. Not even a little. Actually, it’s not altogether unrealistic that a New York City police detective, presumably a well-educated person, would have a cynical sense of humour and would make a quip likening one of their cases to current political events.
This “cultulre war” stuff is bullshit and being used to justify things, as wars (real or imagined) always do. The U.S. didn’t consist of 49% Bush voters and 48% Kerry voters who are as easy to distinguish as red and blue poker chips. No doubt many voters for Bush did so reluctantly because they disliked something about Kerry, and many voters for Kerry did so because they disliked something about Bush, and these voters have quite a lot in common.
DeLay is talking nonsense about Law & Order damaging the country and so are you.
Exactly, Nurse Carmen, you nailed what is exactly the whole point. Learn from history, this sort of thing has been known to happen before. England, the year 1170, to be precise.
I’ve a confession to make. 
This morning I wasn’t watching where I was going as I rounded the dining room table, and I stubbed my toe! What’s worse is, I let loose with a little curse (goddamncocksuckmotherfucksonofabitchOwOwOwww! or some such) and my wife heard me! Now I know this will affect her for the rest of the day, and in turn those she meets will be affected, and those who meet them, ad aeternum.
Have I single-handedly damaged the fabric of American life? Will I bear ultimate responsibility for the downfall of the nation? Should I just kill myself now?
Well, when you put it that way… of course.
[QUOTE=kanashibari]
My point is that cheap potshots are unbecoming, no matter how deserving their target may be.
And is it your position that fictional characters should only say things that are noble, honorable, and good in all ways?
And is it your position that writers should only write dialogue for characters that brings people together? That partisan characters should not appear in fictional settings?
Look. The artist has an artistic responsibility, in a mimetic drama (i.e., one based on the real world), to give the characters verisimilitude. If it’s in keeping for the character to make a smartass political joke, then the character should make a smartass political joke. If it’s not in keeping, then the character shouldn’t do it.
It’s positively Quaylean to criticize a fictional character for not upholding some set of moral standards.
Daniel
It doesn’t have the same imapct without the mock sign language.
Did you miss the part where I answered my own question with an “of course not?”
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
No, it’s my position that it was a poorly fashioned joke and that the people who wrote it are douchebags. It’s not a matter of what kind of dialogue writers “ought to,” or worse, “ought to be allowed to” write. It’s an issue of douchey people writing douchey and un-clever political potshots into a TV script and making me roll my eyes and groan and swear. I’m talking opinions here, people, not moral absolutes. I just think that such jokes demonstrate a lack of good taste, not in the “family values” sense, but in an aesthetic sense.
If you want to write political commentary into your dialogue, that’s great. Just try to make it intelligent, is all I’m saying.
Did you forget your sentence starting with “But” that immediately followed your selective quoting? DeLay is talking nonsense about L&O; you are talking nonsense about the contribution “to the breakdown of real political debate and the continued dominance of blind partisanship”.
Frankly, I’m not sure what tangible difference, if any, exists between your position and DeLay’s. If you take personal offense at something you see on TV, fine. If DeLay had admitted taking personal offense, fine. But neither you nor DeLay have any reason to suggest that political debate or public discourse in the U.S. is in trouble.
Incidentally, a call for more intelligent commentary is somewhat weakened when it includes adjectives like “douchey”.
Just saying, is all.
[QUOTE=kanashibari]
They’re douchebags for writing bad dialogue? Welcome to network TV, son! Most dialogue 'round these parts is written by syphilitic monkeys, used to paper birdcages, and then deciphered by a coked-up director five minutes before shooting.
They’re douchebags for writing bad dialogue that touches on politics? 'Fraid you’ll have to explain that one a little more.
You’re reading too much into the joke. Just like into this one:
Q. How many Congressmen does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. That’s not funny!
Daniel