We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty
Edward R Murrow
On Boston Legal last night Alan Shore (James Spader) and Denny Crane (William Shatner) had their first fight, over the war in Iraq.
It was so perfect to watch them fight as Alan, dressed as a Pink Flamingo, quoted Edward R Morrow “dissent should never be stifled,” Thought he said that, but found the above when I looked, and Denny, not dressed as a Pink Flamingo, said some loyalty to America rhetoric back.
Alan represented a paralegal in the firm. Her brother had been recruited for the National Guard, was going to serve one year as a trial period, and learn skills. Instead his enlistment time was racked up by 20 something years–yes, really. He was sent to Iraq and was killed trying to defuse an explosive. He had no training in explosives.
The Armed Forces are immune from prosecution, but Alan tried a novel approach through state court. He lost, but his point was made.
Though he and Denny made up, and were dressed as matching Pink Flamingo’s for the office holiday party, they mimicked, minus the Pink Flamingo part, everything that’s happening in our country now.
Their fight was sheer brilliance; brilliant words, brilliant actors looking pained and truly sad at the animosity that this war should come between the best friendship either of them ever had. I love Boston Legal for its portrayal of this friendship. One brilliant middle aged man coming to terms with the end of long youthful beauty who always lets his personal ethics and moralvalues come before the law or friendship; and one vain man also brilliant coming to terms with the end of later middle age, and maybe his mind. For a lawyer who has never lost a case, watching yourself possibly becoming demented is tragic as it would be for anybody. But lawyers can be the supreme egotists, and William Shatner shows it so well.
I overused the word brilliance on purpose as brilliance also means illumination, and Boston Legal is the only show on network TV that lights up my life. Alan Shore got in all my catch favorite words and expressions in his argument in court. Must watch it again, if you haven’t seen this episode, it will be repeated, and it was so damn on target.
People don’t love it any less for dissenting. I find the rhetoric being spewed now much more hateful than the rhetoric that was spewed during Viet Nam.
Probably because I live in New York; there was not Internet; no trolls who wander around it leaving comments about the war, and personalized comments about moralvalues.
All this hate; this divide; it’s wrong. But until dissent isn’t stifled; until people feel free to state their views without fear of some rad rightist or rad leftist leaving hate filled comments, this country isn’t really free.
It’s analogous to what was going on in DC, and now that Fitzgerald conducted an investigation people can be proud of, one that was conducted by the book and with dignity, and now that the Senate held a secret session invoking rule 21 maybe we can find out what has been happening.
I’m tired of living in a country where dissent is seen as something horrible when our entire history has been built on dissent, or people who couldn’t dissent and came here to be free.
Even if you think the war is justified, you should understand that this war has become so muddied with moralvalues, and hate for people who think differently than you do, sometimes I’m not clear as to where the real war is; in Iraq or the battle to save non-Christian’s souls, or non-practicing Christians, or to just lord it over people.
And that is said with deep sadness as some of the best people I have met on the Internet are practicing Christians. Of course they do understand that in America The First Amendment guarantees my right to say what I want to on these pages, and that I don’t hate America or Christians.
After watching Boston Legal last night I wanted to write something, but I knew it would be politically tinged, and I don’t want to alienate people who read Courting.
Sometimes I don’t know if people on the Internet feed Bill Frist and all the rest their lines, or they feed it to people on the Internet. It’s very confusing
Was just surfing BE for the first time in a long time. Came across a banner “laugh at liberals” which when clicked was a certain radical right blog that has always sickened me. I’m trying to understand how people like that find pleasure in making fun of liberals, which is anybody who doesn’t think exactly the right way, and then has the gall to tell us our moralvalues are wrong?
I would think that treating people with respect and dignity would be the number one moralvalue. Or are only people who think the right way accorded respect? I think that sums it up for me.
They’re not true Christians; they’re hate mongers. When did religion and politics become so intermingled? Are we losing all respect for The Bill of Rights?
Or do I have to respect their rights, while they can trample on mine?
I am proud to be a Democrat today, and maybe now the truth can come out. It’s been too long a wait.
And I have to stop blogging so much so that I can afford the $200 a month increase in my health care premium. Insurance is supposed to buy peace of mind, not sleepless nights, however…in this up down crazy country, health care isn’t a priority. Making fun of Democrats is.
And I think that Alan Shore prove that liberals have a sense of humor. Okay James Spader saying David E Kelley’s words. But he said them with more dignity and graciousness than anybody in a Pink Flamingo suit had a right to.
Didn’t see the show, but “yup” to everything here.
If Courting Destiny was a neighborhood bar I would probably hang out in it. Although I’d drink mostly diet cokes.
i’m not a big fan of boston legal, but i have always loved david kelley’s shows because he tends to approach current-day issues in a way that most television shows do/will not. boston public and the practice were two shows that did so on a regular basis. unfortunately, boston legal is just a little too cheesy for me (as was the last season of the practice) but c’est la vie, non?
Here’s an echo to Josh’s statement above… if Courting Destiny was a bar, I’d be drunk and poor most of the time.
I personally support the war in Iraq, but I don’t want to have that argument here. What I hate is that supporters of the war always seem to fall back on macho patriotism and can’t rationally defend their position. I think it’s a telling bit of symbolism you found.
I watched it last night and agree with everything you said. The disagreement between Alan and Denny was brilliantly written. I also would like to add that the secondary story portrayed by Candice Bergen’s character sort of backed up that message of tolerance — of all of us being in the same boat. Having the Super-Christian couple teaming up with the Wiccan couple to achieve the same end, for different and ultimately opposing reasons, was awesome.
The whole show had a great message.
I agree with your assessment that the hatred being generated today over politics is fueled tremendously by the internet. It’s like the old adage that you can’t have good unless there is evil — I guess with a medium like the internet, you can’t bring people together without, at the same time, pushing them apart. It’s the nature of humanity in a situation like this.
Even with the political arguing and promotion of hatred by some on the net, it’s amazing to be a witness to its evolution. We’re only slightly over ten years into mass-involvement in this thing…it’s like a big, boiling pot of, I don’t know, the stuff we came from physically? heehee Intellectual evolution. Growing pains.
Anyway, Boston Legal was great.
I like watching it more every week.
I agree with you, Pia. It’s a matter of faith with me that intelligence and good intentions are evenly distributed across the political spectrum. It’s no-ones fault if we forget that but our own.
“They’re not true Christians; they’re hate mongers. When did religion and politics become so intermingled? Are we losing all respect for The Bill of Rights?”
So Agreed.
Personally – I truly loved seeing both men standing side by side in their flamingo costumes – it was perfect. I wasn’t able to really watch the episode – my friend called with an issue that needed a sympathetic ear – but that one beautiful sight made my evening!
As for the divisions over the war – the vitriol is scalding. I cannot have conversations with the scream and hop up and down crowd – nothing penetrates. It saddens me. I believe in debate – I will listen to you, and you, as a courtesy if nothing else, will listen to me. Let me tell you, that kind of equity isn’t common down here in the south. Pity, really; and very isolating.
I usually don’t wach BL, but purposely stayed glued to the TV for this week’s episode. I found it riveting. Both “court stories” were timely and those things needed to be voiced in a public arena. Especially loved Candice Bergen’s use of the famous “…and then they came for me.” story from a WWII German Reverend.
And the closing argument in the Iraq case actually caught me letting out a cheer at the end. I wish I could’ve written it that well myself!
Really want the text of the argument. It would be perfect to use…
I found the writing for this episode very one sided. While you say that liberals are begging for a debate, I have yet to deal with one that is willing to admit at the start that their premises are arguments, not givens. In court the writers did not allow for the government’s attorney to respond to Spader’s characters statements. While you may feel it contributed to the debate on the war, I only saw it as a typical, one sided, Hollywood propaganda statement for a liberal point of view.
Yawn. Why is it that some people continue to whine about ersatz one-sided liberal presentations, even when the cons win? In BL, the government had ample opportunity to present its side; this complaint has cherry-picked the courtroom time for the gov’t attorney as evidence that the plaintiff dominated the debate. Better go back and watch a re-run, this time without the blinders.
Maybe you’re ticked off about the judge’s comments prior to ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. If you want to address something, address his remarks. Address the specific situation which brought the suit about in the first place. Make a case for the military’s negotiated agreements and its reneging on them because they were so desparate for cannon fodder in Iraq. Make a case for how this soldier could possibly have done his job without the necessary training.
The assumption here is that anyone against the war must be liberal — and that all conservatives are for the war. It’s impossible to have a reasoned debate with this unproven premise.
But if equal time is the issue, then start reviewing the Hannities, O’Reilley’s, etc. programs to see how much equal time they give to the opposition.
BTW, the Hollywood pejorative is wearing thin, cons need to learn some new adjectives, refresh themselves on reality, and write a new script. Their credibility is waning as intelligent Americans have watched them continue to unravel.