a couple weeks ago i finally broke down and ordered the complete series of the show mentioned above. i had watched it when it was on a few years ago, and i was deeply saddened that it didn't get picked up. although i guess i shouldn't be that surprised. it offered a little more social commentary than most people care for i suppose.
i'm a pretty big aaron sorkin fan. i own the complete series of Sports Night and the first five seasons of The West Wing (i couldn't bear watching after the first few episodes of the fifth season). anyone who has seen the shows would have a hard time arguing that the substance of them is that distinct. and one could go so far as to say they are the same show in three different packages. so i find it a bit suspicious that Sports Night and Studio 60 made it two and one seasons, respectively, while The West Wing went seven and won quite a few emmys. i'm no conspiracy guy, but could it have something to do with the american flag being in The West Wing's opening credits? who's to say?
anyway, of the three The West Wing is probably my favorite, but then it had much more of a chance to earn that accolade. of the three, the first season of Studio 60 is by far the best. the first season of The West Wing is almost painful to recall - especially moira kelly. once she left it had the superior cast of the three, but only barely. all three casts were phenomenal compared to anything else on tv. matthew perry was great on West Wing and Studio 60. i hope he gets another shot at a role like that. only time will tell i suppose.
"suzanne, tarps over everything!"
26 March 2008
17 March 2008
a bit of a crowbar separation, please
i thought maybe under bush people would begin to realize that a president's (or candidate's) religious beliefs really mean nothing regarding the way they will govern. bush is a self-avowed Christian (as are all candidates who hope to have a prayer of getting elected) and yet he has waged an unprovoked, unmitigated, endless war built entirely on lies. at the same time he has thwarted any effort to care for the environment and ignored any scientific evidence (or really any opinion) that has not supported his beliefs. i defy anyone to defend the claim (with a straight face) that he has done anything in his presidency that would even please Jesus Christ.
but i'm fine with this because politicians are not pastors and they shouldn't be. they should, of course, stop pretending to be devout Christians and admit they're playing to the crowd. but at the same time, the voters should actually explore history rather than listen to hack revisionist historians (often in the form of "pastors") and realize that the founders of the united states wanted a government devoid of religious favoritism and influence.
to those who want to belong to the Church - God is the ultimate authority. therefore, there is no allegiance to the state. to those who want to pledge allegiance to the state, let them serve the state, but don't expect them to worship God. no one can serve two gods.
which brings me to jeremiah wright. he is a pastor. his job is not to make flattering comments about the united states. his job is to serve God. people may certainly disagree with his sermons, but not in any political way because he is not a politician. and if people disagree with his sermons, they should speak with him, not members of his church. they don't write his sermons.
perhaps obama should answer questions about his relationship to wright - but not the kind the media are offering. maybe obama should be asked why a political campaign has a chaplain or spiritual advisors. even more basic, he should be asked how he plans to command a military that may be called upon to kill while he serves a God that forbids killing. but of course these questions draw attention to the problems of mixing Church and state, and everybody knows those two are separate. right?
but i'm fine with this because politicians are not pastors and they shouldn't be. they should, of course, stop pretending to be devout Christians and admit they're playing to the crowd. but at the same time, the voters should actually explore history rather than listen to hack revisionist historians (often in the form of "pastors") and realize that the founders of the united states wanted a government devoid of religious favoritism and influence.
to those who want to belong to the Church - God is the ultimate authority. therefore, there is no allegiance to the state. to those who want to pledge allegiance to the state, let them serve the state, but don't expect them to worship God. no one can serve two gods.
which brings me to jeremiah wright. he is a pastor. his job is not to make flattering comments about the united states. his job is to serve God. people may certainly disagree with his sermons, but not in any political way because he is not a politician. and if people disagree with his sermons, they should speak with him, not members of his church. they don't write his sermons.
perhaps obama should answer questions about his relationship to wright - but not the kind the media are offering. maybe obama should be asked why a political campaign has a chaplain or spiritual advisors. even more basic, he should be asked how he plans to command a military that may be called upon to kill while he serves a God that forbids killing. but of course these questions draw attention to the problems of mixing Church and state, and everybody knows those two are separate. right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)