Media

"Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals."

|

Yeah, well I don't see you winning any Emmys, Salon-boy. They don't even GIVE Emmys to the Internet. LOSERS.

I'm happy to see TV/film/stage scribe Aaron Sorkin make it onto Alex Pareene's hack list. Here's the opener:

Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals. He's a smug, condescending know-it-all who isn't as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and he's preachy. Sorkin has spent years fueling the delusional self-regard of well-educated liberals. He might be more responsible than anyone else for the anti-democratic "everyone would agree with us if they weren't all so stupid" attitude of the contemporary progressive movement. And age is not improving him.

More moments worth quoting:

• "His characters always say exactly, precisely what they mean, at all times. There's no subtext, no irony, nothing ever left unspoken in his dialogue. His characters don't even get to be sarcastic without someone asking them if they're being sarcastic. Everyone alternates between speechifying, quipping and dumbly setting up other people's quips. It's exhausting."

• "Sorkin fit the broad details of Mark Zuckerberg's life and Facebook's founding into the only sort of story he is interested in and able to tell. It's well and good to say Sorkin's sole responsibility is to entertain, but I think an obnoxious little Sorkin analogue character would probably look askance at some Hollywood screenwriter who took such liberties with the truth in the service of disposable entertainment. (On the other hand, the moral responsibilities of an artist dealing with real-world material is maybe the sort of question too thorny for Sorkin's paper-thin characters to dispense with in a quick Act 3 speech.)"

Sam Waterston's bow tie: an affectation-by-proxy.

• "'He humiliated congressional candidates on my network,' she says at Sam Waterston, as if that were a thing someone who owned a cable news network would be mad about."

• "A dumb girl (dumb girls are this show's primary villains) asks what makes America the greatest country in the world, which is the sort of question asked only by Sean Hannity, and Daniels says that it's not: not just because of our poor infant mortality rate but also (and much more importantly) because as a society we no longer revere 'great men.' This is the same idiotic nostalgia that inspires your typical David Brooks column."

NEXT: Obama Administration Will Review Clarence Aaron's Commutation Petition and the Clemency Process

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. That is pretty good.

      I noticed that one of the commentators said it was too funny. But it’s not, at least not intended to be funny. The humor is in the meta. Therefore, it is exactly the kind of comedy Sorkin could write. The kind where we laugh at him, not with him.

      1. “I finally get Aaron Sorkin’s Sports Night! It’s a comedy that’s too good to be funny!”

        1. You quoting Family Guy? I thought that Family Guy was on the list with Michael Bay and The Hangover.

          1. I used to like Family Guy. I’m not sure why I stopped, but I once did.

            1. Brian became a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party

          2. That’s pre-cancellation/comeback Family Guy, before it became awful.

            1. I thought Macfarlane had offloaded all the horribleness to “American Dad,” a show for people who think “Family Guy” is too nuanced and subtle.

              1. As nuanced and subtle as blaming the phone hacking scandal on Julian Assange?

  1. Pareen understates the matter. We hate left-liberals for lots of reasons.

    1. I concur.

    2. Yes, people generally hate their betters

  2. I don’t think we should judge his work against other shows. Its primary purpose isn’t even to entertain an audience or to make great television.

    The show is propaganda. Its meant to persuade the idiot masses, and, as propaganda, its extremely effective.

    1. I would agree, but even the LA Times called it preachy.

      When the LA Times is telling you that, you know something’s gone wrong, somewhere.

    2. Propaganda for the masses on HBO? So, both your opinion and Sorkin’s show fail in execution and in concept

  3. I don’t know. Didn’t we get Moneyball out of Sorkin?

    1. We got the Billy Bean story, not Moneyball.

      1. The Billy Bean story was still pretty good.

        1. Not as good as Moneyball.

          1. Can’t blame Sorkin for that one. The book was weak to being with and only got worse with time.

            Are Beane and Williams the only GM’s still in their Moneyball jobs?

            1. I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that Jeremy Giambi is still putting strippers through college, does that count?

      2. Billy Beane with an ‘e’. Normally not a big deal, but there’s also a former baseball player named Billy Bean (no ‘e’) who came out as gay.

      3. We definitely didn’t get the Billy Bean story. If you are a male and have trouble remembering which is which, you can use the rhyme “The Bean(e) with an ‘e’ does not prefer me… sexually”

        1. It seems very, very important to you to assert your straightness. What are you afraid of thinking if you think of Bean, rather than Beane?

          1. Um, I’m afraid of making a mistake and writing the wrong name when I write something about baseball? I mean, I have a way to remember the middle initials of the two players named “Chris Young” to tell them apart too, and I don’t have any idea what their sexual preferences are.

          2. Would it suit your sensibilities better if my reminder rhyme referred to what Beane does rather than what Bean does? If you’ve got something better by all means share.

          3. Ah, so I’m guessing you were referring to Voros’ comment beginning with “Normally not a big deal..” that I responded to rather than what I wrote, sorry.

            I was kind of sitting here thinking “wait a minute, what did I even say about my own sexuality anyway? My rhyme only says that Beane prefers women, I could be gay as a picnic and that would still be accurate”

  4. Daniels says that it’s not: not just because of our poor infant mortality rate but also (and much more importantly) because as a society we no longer revere ‘great men.’

    This statement epitomizes modern liberalism in a nutshell–undermine the culture and institutions that formed what made society “great,” then look around at the wreckage of what your philosophy produced and complain that no one preserved what you spent decades trying to destroy.

    It used to be that liberals sneered at the concept of celebrating “great men,” because FUCK YOU, YOU HETERONORMATIVE BIGOT. Now Sorkin’s appealing to the rhapsodic hagiographic style that epitomized Victorian/Georgian biographies, as if he and his fellow travelers played no part in denigrating the accomplishments of actual great men instead of a bunch of tokens to ethnic and gender grievance.

    1. It sums it up even better than you think. The statement includes a total lie. The US infant mortality rate is only “higher” in the sense that we try to save a lot more children than the rest of the world does.

      That lie has been debunked I don’t know how many thousands of times. It has now become just a superstition that liberals cling to. So no only does the statement include the “great man” worship, but also it includes a piece of deceptive junk science.

      Yeah, that is liberalism.

      1. Don’t we also count still borns as live births?

        1. I believe so.

        2. Not still-borns, but infants that even gasp one breath, which is a different measure than other countries use. Many countries require the infant to live more than 24 hours to be a “live birth”.

          The United States also counts severely premature children as “live births” where other countries do not, because other countries consider babies born under X weeks “unsaveable”.

          1. Yes, this is an entirely misleading statistic. As usual.

            1. And it doesn’t matter how many times it is pointed out how misleading it is, liberals cling to it like a Rosary.

            2. I think I learned that in Moneyball.

              1. And the douchebag “flipped” the stats anyway. We’re #170 something in infant death rate, meaning we’re about 44th in success.

          2. Many countries cound dead babies as ‘do-overs’… Mulligans, if you will.

            1. Speaking of mulligans, did they let Adam Scott play two balls on every hole today and take the better score? Jesus, that man had one hell of a round.

              BTW, an American will not win The Open this year.

          3. I didn’t know about the premies. That’s so fucked up. I knew there was a reason I hated it when my lefty friends try to point that statistic out.

      2. A liberal criticizes another liberal, rather justly and harshly, and for a large portion of a comment thread on a libertarian site, we get wingnuts saying “all liberals think alike.”

        Doesn’t really matter where one starts, the wingnuts can express their jihad against the lie-beruls

    2. Well, their goal was never to do away with “Great Men”, per se. They just wanted to replace the great men the public chose on their own for silly things like achievement and excellence with a new set of great men who held the status because…fuck you we fucking said so!

      1. I’ll have to disagree with you and Sorkin here. Society revered “great men” who did have achievement and excellence. The classic example would be TR. He was loved considerably, and had his fair share of accomplishments and excellence. But, ultimately, people being typically sheeplike, followed his “progressive” ideas and assertive foreign policy, and a century hence-forth, we have inherited his hell-hole.

        We ought not revere “great men” or great anyone. Instead, we ought to have a nuanced and total view of the realities that one can be a pioneer of technology, a tycoon in industry, or an impeccable actor and still not have a goddamn iota of smarts where it concerns policy. And in those areas where we ought to appreciate their considerable contributions, we shouldn’t revere a pioneer, but rather seek to outdo him, to relegate him to yesterday’s news. Reverence ought be reserved for a deity if you believe in such. Everyone else ought to be considered a model to adapt and improve upon and a record to break.

        1. Well, Sudden, there’s a difference between celebrating and revering, though, isn’t there? I mean how else do you decide whose achievements you wish to model or surpass other than admiration for their achievements?

        2. Instead, we ought to have a nuanced and total view …

          Hick trash and urban trust fund underachievers agree: that would take too much honest effort.

    3. The American left in 2012 is very different from the American left in, say, 1987. 9/11, more than anything else, turned them from somewhat reliable on civil liberties, into a bunch of creepy authoritarians.

      1. Well, you sure as fuck know about being authoritarian, Tulpy-poo. So you should feel right at home with them.

        1. Yeesh. Keep your powder dry, Epi.

      2. On economic issues the left has also taken a pretty hard turn into crazyville.

        Clinton Carter JFK all were far less left wing on the economy then Obama is.

        1. This is a bullshit comment. As a liberal, Obama has done absolutely nothing the Left wanted. I wanted a big enough stimulus, mortgage relief, single payer/public option, and an end to the Bush tax cuts. Instead I get a guy looking for a grand bargain who extended a bunch of tax cuts and protected the Pete who fucked us in 2000-2008 by shoveling money at them.

          That’s as far from Leftist as your comment is from reality

          1. That’s as far from Leftist as your comment is from reality

            1. Damn squirrels

              That’s as far from Leftist as your comment is from reality

              Clinton signed NAFTA, coined the term Creative Destruction, balanced the budget, reformed welfare, and declared that the era of big government is over.

              Carter ended price controls and deregulated the air travel industry.

              JFK cut taxes to create jobs.

              Obama raised the Debt from 60% of GDP to 100% of GDP for some Keynesian fantasy to stimulate the economy which has failed for three years, over saw the government take mammoth stakes in banks and the Auto industry, pushed for and achieved an endangerment finding for CO2 and socialized health care.

              Yeah sure. It is I who is living in unicorn land.

      3. The American left in 2012 is very different from the American left in, say, 1987.

        The American left in 1987 revered the first amendment. I have always suspected that it was because the left had a more dominant control on the message.

        By that I mean that most media types were, in some way or form lefties.

        Sometime in the 90s the right started getting their own media fiefdoms, the left lost their monopoly on the message, and suddenly the first amendment had “limits”.

  5. The villain of episode 4 is a lady gossip columnist (well, her and the lady owner of the network). This is a pretty fundamental misreading of the purpose and history of “the news,” which is not actually wise men sternly lecturing you about what you need to know even if you don’t care about it.

    Delicious. For all the structural flaws and bad writing, this is the real rot at the core of the show. Sorkin is attempting to portray an American media that has never existed and would be unrecognizable as “the media” is performed as such. The news as Zinn-driven civics lecture is a figment of his imagination.

    1. MATT DAMON!

      1. If Zinn was my next-door neighbor, I’d have made poor career decisions like Ocean’s 13 and The Bourne Ultimatum too.

        1. Were they neighbors? No wonder Damon’s so screwed up, Howard had his claws into him from a young age.

        2. I heard an interview with Mark Wallberg one time. He basically admitted to turning down every role Damon has played (Oceans 11, the Bourne Movies and so forth) because he felt they were Hollywood crap and he didn’t want to sell out his acting ability for a check. He never mentioned Damon by name once. But my God was it an epic slam.

          1. I liked Oceans 11 and The Bourne Identity.

            1. Oceans 11 was fun. But the sequels were all crap.

              1. You liked Oceans 11?!?

                AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                1. Any movie with Elliot Gould is not all bad. He made the entire movie.

                2. Yes, I liked it. And you didn’t because…?

                  1. Because it was typical Soderbergh shit, with the worst thing you can have: a jam-packed all-star ego-fest cast. Plus, two words: Julia. Roberts.

                    It’s garbage.

                    1. *yawn*

                      Sneering elitism is super-boring.

                    2. Sneering elitism? The sneering elites love Soderbergh. I hate him.

                      Try again, dude. I know it pains you that I criticized a movie you like, but don’t take it personally.

                    3. You didn’t “criticize” anything. I mean, unless saying “it’s shit” counts as “criticism”. It counts as a tantrum in my book.

                      Now, Epi, use your words and tell me what the problem with Ocean’s Eleven is. Enjoyable characters, clever plot, heist movie (as jc says below). So what’s not to like?

                    4. I’ll use your words instead. The characters were not enjoyable, the plot was not clever, and if I want to see a contemporary heist movie, I’ll watch Ronin.

                      It’s funny how when you say it’s “enjoyable”, that’s authoritative, but when I say it’s shit, it’s not. Look in the mirror, Gene Siskel.

                    5. That’s some retarded shit you’re dropping, Epi. There are a lot of words to describe Soderbergh’s movies, but ‘typical’ is not among them.

                    6. Hugh, let me explain something to you. “Typical” referred to “Soderbergh”, meaning it was typical for Soderbergh. Meaning it was just like his other crap, the only one of which I like being Sex, Lies, and Videotape. Everything else he’s done is derivative garbage where he takes someone else’s work and apes it. Almost every one of his movies is based off of another work, whether film or literature (or both).

                    7. Andie MacDowell in her prime (still looks great) playing a horny pent up girly girl. Can’t go wrong with that.

                    8. Julia Roberts frightens me

                3. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                  It was a heist movie….

                  How can a heist movie ever be bad?

                  Epi i am getting the feeling that you are a movie snob…who actually doesn’t like any good movies.

                  I mean you have a few dozen eclectic movies, most of which are crap, and then you go around and condemn all other movies.

                  Seriously dude when Battle Royal is your favorite you really cannot go around and laugh at other people’s tastes.

                  1. Episarch is just a hipster. They hate Ocean’s 11 because it’s popular with what they consider to be the “uncool” people.

                4. Yeah, cause I don’t judge entertainment on whoever the fucktarded director is but on if it entertains me or not.

                  Radical I know.

                  1. Ronin was good too.

          2. Wahlberg was executive producer for Entourage, so he gets a special place in my heart for that at least.

            1. I like Wahlberg. I liked Boogie Nights. And the one where he was the football player from South Philly who made the Eagles. He is a good actor.

              And it is really true. He could play every part Damon has ever played only better. He is like Matt Damon only with actual talent.

              1. And Matt Damon will always be cursed with knowing that he’ll never be as good an actor as Markie Mark.

                1. Yes but blessed knowing that he’s a better actor than Ben Affleck.

              2. He could play every part Damon has ever played only better.

                I have to disagree. I don’t love Damon or anything, but Damon could play Will Hunting and there’s no real Wahlberg could have.

                Seriously, if you put Wahlberg in that role I laugh my ass off every time he’s on the screen.

                Wahlberg as a boy genius? Come on. Wahlberg could have played the Ben Affleck role pretty easily, but not the Matt Damon role.

                And no, I don’t think Matt Damon is a genius. I just think he played one reasonably plausibly, and there’s no way Marky Mark could.

                1. I will give you Good Will Hunting Fluffy. But Damon was basically playing himself. It didn’t require any acting ability. So all you are left with is “Wahlberg could play any part Damon plays but couldn’t actually play Damon as well as Damon did”.

                2. Yeah, but Damon as Dirk Diggler? That’s twice as implausable as Marky Mark in the GWH movie. Didn’t care much for it, anyway, but Boogie Nights was outstanding.

            2. You seen Ted? I can’t tell if I want to see it or not. Mila Kunis is usually enough to get my price of admission, but I fear that the Family Guy lineage will result in it being a completely random collection of scenes with little plot glue holding it together.

              1. I want to see it. But I figure it will be exactly what you fear but that at least some of the scenes will be funny enough to make it worth seeing.

                1. John, it is funny. I do not think you will be disappointed.

                  Sneak peak: Ted has one line in which he takes a shot at Peter Griffin.

              2. It is funny as shit. Totally worth seeing.

              3. …and waaaayyy too much confidence in its own presumptions of superiority.

              4. Ted is worth it. He is really good in it.

          3. Huh. The douchebag of my douchebag is apparently still a douchebag.

          4. Second time together for the two actors I believe. Max Payne was a disappointment in many ways (should have been a long protracted manhunt like the game instead of so much character interaction — let the bullets do the talking!) but the script writers handled the exposition very well. Nothing was revealed until it was necessary.

            1. Oh, yeah, I finally saw Constantine. Nothing against anything that it took me so long. I like Keunu and I love Moore and Garth Ennis the writers most identified with Hellblazer, but it came out at one of the busiest points in my life.

              But then I found out a few weeks ago that Peter Stormare played Lucifer and then it went to the top of my que. Fuck yeah. He did not dissapoint and neither did Tilda. I like this movie. Not one hundred percent successful, as the plot is a hole, but four really good scenes spread out almost equal distant in time marks make it worth your time.

              1. I was pleasantly surprised by Constantine.

                1. The ending pissed me off. He should have lit up a cig.

            2. Max Payne was a disappointment in many ways

              Max Payne 3 the video game on the other hand was very satisfying.

              The narrative was a complete fucking mess….but yeah the music was good and you killed lots of people in very spectacular ways.

          5. Thank god he took on The Happening. Imagine what a pile of shit that movie would have been without him.

    2. The news as Zinn-driven civics lecture

      I will be stealing this, so fuck you.

      1. I have grown comfortable with this ignoble fate.

        1. Well, I do believe Warty typically rapes and steals. So the fact that you are not being raped in the process is evidence of a disheveled physical appearance and horrid hygiene.

          1. While you’re not wrong about NutraSweet’s appearance or hygiene, you are totally wrong about Warty caring about that. Really, the truth is that he’s raped NutraSweet so many times now that he’s bored with it.

            Which is completely understandable.

            1. It makes me feel bad about myself.

              1. As you should!

            2. His cloaca no longer holds any novelty, any secrets, any joy, for me.

              1. It is sad when rape love fades into indifference.

                1. A rapist’s love is different from a square’s love.

                  1. I suffer from l’ennui du violeur.

  6. The hero, now, is a man who calls a date a “bitch” for caring about reality-TV stars, and his creator is a man who said this to a newspaper reporter: “‘Listen here, Internet girl,’ he says, getting up. ‘It wouldn’t kill you to watch a film or pick up a newspaper once in a while.'”

    Either Sorkin has amazing skills of empathy or he is a massive jackass who lets gives his characters his own internal dialog.

    1. I’m gonna go with massive jackass for 500 Alex.

        1. That’s not possible. He’s Canadian.

        2. Come on, she said “more rounderer”. I would have laughed at her too.

    2. “Watch a film?” Holy Moses, is that rich.

    3. What’s a “newspaper”?

  7. Eh, the real-life situation in America has become much too horrible for me to invest any emotion in what comes out of the mind of Sorkin, or Schmorkin, or whatever his name is.

    Here’s an idea: turn off the stupid TV once in a while and read a book.

    1. Why don’t you turn off the internet once in a while and read the news instead.

    2. Sorkin will be happy to provide a list of books that are officially approved. Zinn, Maddow, Franken, Chomsky, Steinem, et al.

      Although I hope he gets 50 Shades of Grey so that he can ruin the mommy porn for all the ladies by painting Christian Grey as beastly a metaphor for Wall Street’s rape of the struggling liberal arts majors of my generation.

      1. I recently watched the first season of SNL. It was very good, but does Franken deserve the blame for running the Chevy Chase/Weekend Update/Ronald Reagan gag into the ground? It was barely funny in Episode 1; why were they still doing it in Episode 20?

        1. does Franken deserve the blame for running the Chevy Chase/Weekend Update/Ronald Reagan gag into the ground? It was barely funny in Episode 1; why were they still doing it in Episode 20?

          Probably not. I’ve read that Franken and Davis had trouble getting stuff onto the air for much of the first season.

      2. Sorkin will be happy to provide a list of books that are officially approved. Zinn, Maddow, Franken, Chomsky, Steinem, et al.

        I can’t imagine Sorkin recommending Zinn or Chomsky. They don’t revere Great Men.

        1. I imagine the point is that Sorkin reveres Zinn and Chomsky as Great Men.

          1. Sorkin doesn’t do irony.

            1. Well, not intentionally.

              1. In fact I would say he is the master of unintentional irony.

    3. Good advice, should I pick up Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey?

      1. 50 Shades of Twilight

          1. When 50 Shades of Grey comes out in the movies I am going to dress up in a suit and pick up women in the theater…then have regular missionary and/or cowgirl sex with them.

    4. Someone giving Sorkin a run for his money in holier-than-thou preachiness!

    5. The condescending Luddite circa 1960! What are you doing on the internet?

  8. His characters always say exactly, precisely what they mean, at all times. There’s no subtext, no irony, nothing ever left unspoken in his dialogue.

    Honestly i kind of like this…it might be why i watched West Wing for so long and why i keep watching Newsroom….It is also why i think i like Dexter’s sister on Dexter.

    And yes it can be exhausting especially when all the characters on the show do it all the time.

    But at the same time I do not think this has anything to do with liberals or conservatives or whatever.

    Overly honest and verbose characters I think are politically neutral.

    1. It is also why i think i like Dexter’s sister on Dexter

      That reasoning seems to be a bit of a stretch. She has to be the most unsympathetic character on the show precisely because she falls into that standard conceit espoused mainly by unlikeable females–“Like, I’m not a bitch, but if someone does something I think is stupid, I’m going to, you know, call them on it. They, like, just can’t handle my honesty.” Having no social filter is not exactly a sign of a emotionally balanced individual.

      1. Having no social filter is not exactly a sign of a emotionally balanced individual.

        Nor is it particularly believable when an entire cast is prone to the same fundamental flaw. It’s one thing when it’s a singular and tertiary character, a muse of sorts. But Sorkin always makes his protagonist such a person, and always makes the rest of his characters the same way. The only time when any character evolves is in breaking this mold to defer to the wisdom and intellect of his protagonist making a sweeping statement of “truth” in this unfiltered fashion.

      2. She has to be the most unsympathetic character on the show

        She is a foil to Dexter who has and shows no emotion and lies about everything all the time.

        It works. But yeah she is emotionally unstable, but she is not a bitch. Also she is not arrogant about her honesty…she is simply honest…in fact if anything she is apologetic about it.

  9. Anyone who wants to watch a movie that lets them hate liberals without remorse: God Bless America.

    You need to see it. It’s a snuff fantasy wrapped up as social commentary in which the protagonists – both of which regurgitate lefty boilerplate at an alarming rate, proceed to travel the country murdering everyone they think sucks in modern America – especially those evil right-wing talking heads. All while spouting “ironic” witticisms.

    Note that the irony doesn’t extend to noting that the characters are murdering people while theoretically engaged in a crusade against “incivility”. It purely extends to hipster snark about how stupid/wrong the people they (and the audience, it is presumed) are having so much fun offing, while they themselves are so right.

    The entire purpose of the movie is so progressive viewers and the director can masturbate while imagining themselves as the righteous heros killing right wingers.

    1. Here’s what’s ever shittier about that… It’s just a rip-off of The Last Supper, the 1995 film about liberals murdering conservatives. If our entertainments are a reflection of our desires, liberals have some fucked up desires.

      1. They have fucked up desires. Just read anything they write.

      2. Judging by the description, it sounds a lot more nuanced.

        In God Bless America, the characters don’t really spend any time reflecting on what they are doing, they are unrepentant to the end. And the film doesn’t really ever change it’s tone from light-hearted comedy. It ends on an up note.

      3. Huh?

        Didn’t the end of The Last Supper have a right winger killing off all the left wingers at the end?

      4. I forgot about that one. Time to dredge it up on Netflix

      5. Well I haven’t seen the former, but I saw the latter (The Last Supper) and it at least seemed to me that the filmmaker, while a liberal, was critiquing liberals with the film.

    2. No, the irony does extend to comment on what Frank is doing, though it doesn’t really go far enough. It also doesn’t differentiate between Frank’s complaints and Roxy’s, as she’s pretty much a sociopath who does spout lefty bullshit. The film does suggest that Frank is wrong to tolerate her, but again, doesn’t handle it very well.

      1. You can interpret it that way, but you really have to be reading it in on very little basis.

        There’s never any give away that the director isn’t perfectly serious about what the film seems to be saying.

        1. Bobcat Goldthwait directed. Take that little factoid for what it’s worth.

          1. He will also be performing at the upcoming “Gathering of the Juggalos.” Take that factoid for what it’s worth.

            Although, it makes perfect sense if you really think about it. Bobcat is a man who achieved his prominence through no particular intellect or wit within his material but rather a tired gimmick in the way he speaks. Somehow, that seems to embody the liberal thought process in profound manner.

            1. Say what you want, but there is a strange brilliance to Shakes the Clown.

              1. It’s a perfect movie. One of my all time faves.

              2. Don’t forget Windy City Heat. Not sure if he directed, but he was on screen and I loved him in it.

          2. So, joking about murdering conservatives is the kind of “black comedy” that liberals are into.

            What’s your point?

            1. The people murdered aren’t “conservatives.” The first person is some spoiled bitch on reality tv. Then it’s her lame parents. They go after an American Idol show for making fun of a retarde kid’s singing. One guy was a conservative talk show host and the guy even said “I agree with a lot of you politics. It’s just that you’re so mean.” Blam.

          3. Bobcat Goldthwait directed. Take that little factoid for what it’s worth.

            You should see “World’s Greatest Dad.” It’s a great movie.

            Also a perfect movie of his is “Sleeping Dogs Lie”

            Those two movies are awesome. He’s a good director. Deal with it.

    3. the protagonists – both of which regurgitate lefty boilerplate at an alarming rate

      Not really. The older guy hates how mean and shallow people are. He doesn’t spout left wing crap. The chick does (some).

      I thought it was a great movie.

  10. I tried watching the fourth episode to see how terrible it was (also watched the first two, which were hilariously bad), and had to stop after a certain scene. The wonderful Kathryn Hahn is drunk in Jeff Daniels’ apartment, ready for a wild night, and she goes to freshen up. He reaches in to her purse and finds a gun. He then goes off on her, treating her like a psycho, once again immediately recalling statistics about how rapists will often get the gun for themselves. (which, I guess, better to get raped without putting up a fuss than getting raped and risk losing your gun to the attacker?)

    Remember, he’s a life-long Republican. He’s just so deathly afraid of guns that he kicks out a sure thing. Of all the times the show belittles women, I found that the most grossly misogynistic. She’s a beautiful woman in New York City! How the fuck can you judge her for carrying protection!?

    1. Sorkin loves the theme that it is okay to be a complete asshole to everyone around you as long as your intentions are good, you are a middle aged white guy, and you are really good at your job.

      It is like his entire writing career is a justification for what a sorry prick he is in real life.

      1. Now you know why he wrote the screenplay for The Billy Beane Story.

        Beane is the perfect Sorkin character: an arrogant prick who can’t understand why his half-baked ideas don’t work in the real world.

    2. I wonder if Sorkin understands that she would have to be carrying that gun illegally in NYC (nothing wrong with that, I did it myself), because only the most connected of connected people can get unrestricted pistol permits in NYC. I’d guess not, as Sorkin has admitted he doesn’t know shit about most things he writes about.

      1. If I had been Daniels, my first response would have been “hey you can get in a lot of trouble for carrying that in the city”.

        1. Insufficiently preachy!

        2. It’s actually worse, he makes a comment about her having a carry permit (whether assumed or not), and still treats her like a lunatic criminal

    3. tl;dr version–it strains credulity for a male character’s dick to have a political litmus test.

    4. WTF is he doing going in her purse and not realizing that she is the one with the moral high ground at that point?

      Fuck. I wanted to try this out (even if just to hate on) but a scene like that would really put me off.

      1. Yeah. Going through a women’s purse is short of telling her how much better looking her sister is, the best way to ensure an evening ends without you getting laid and without any hope of there ever being a second date.

        You have to be a massive douche bag to do that.

        1. Also, like, what kind of power does the statement “a bad guy could take this from you” have when…you just did something bad and took it from her?

      2. No, I think she asks him to get her something from her purse. I know I worded it as if he just started browsing, but I’m pretty sure it was your run-of-the-mill contrived coincidence.

      3. To be fair, she told him to get the joint that was in there. So he’s one of those pro-marijuana, anti-gun Republicans.

        1. Vast herds of which roam the lands, to be sure.

      4. WTF is he doing going in her purse

        She told him to get her weed from it so they could smoke out. She was going to the bathroom or something.

        Aside from the political hack job this show is I have to admit the scene was pretty awesome in it absurdity. The show could honestly be good if it weren’t so heavy handed in it political message.

    5. ..once again immediately recalling making up statistics about how rapists will often get the gun for themselves.

      FIFY

    6. Sorkin is just fucking derranged on guns. Watch The American President. The president literally says that he will go door to door taking people’s handguns and assault rifles.

      And then the movie asks us to believe he has a shot in hell of winning the election.

      1. That was Sorkin?

  11. I take is some of you are talking about this rant about ‘Merica.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC8ovJYAU3U

    By the way, I agree with about 1/2 of this post too:

    http://postmasculine.com/america

    I know I am going to get reamed, but I basically agree with that sentiment. Fuck the “Great Man” worship. But the part about, “what is so great about America?”

    Yeah I basically agree with that. Like George Carlin said, ” I love this place, i love the freedoms we use to have.”

  12. Alex Pareene is wrong. Sorkin isn’t the reason I hate liberals. Alex Pareene is the reason I hate liberals.

    1. Come on, Pareene’s hack list totally has its moments. Like when he’s mocking Aaron Sorkin, or mourning Tucker Carlson’s decline.

      1. What happened to Tucker Carlson?

        1. The Bow-Tie Strangler. Tucker was the only victim of this mysterious criminal.

        2. dailycaller.com

          1. What is wrong with the Daily Caller? They were the ones who got a hold of the journolist Emails.

            1. I think the point is that that is what Tucker does now, instead of being on TV all the time.

              1. I think I would rather do that than be a TV whore.

  13. the spam filter fucking sucks sweaty balls

  14. I agree with all this. The politics of the show are ridiculous and so off. I’m enjoying the romantic shenanigans that are going on despite the progressive in Republican clothing nonsense.

  15. I live commented on that last episode of Newsroom here:

    https://reason.com/blog/2012/07…..nt_3144184

    best parts:

    joshua corning|7.18.12 @ 2:52AM|#

    It is the GOP’s fault that in 2009 and 2010 that the feds were unable to successfully prosecute bank executives because they cut the DOJ’s budget….

    I guess in this Sorken alternative universe the GOP still controlled congress and more miraculously a budget for a fed government agency was actually cut….oh yeah and entire staff of the newsroom did not notice this….an “insider” had to tell them about the federal budget….
    joshua corning|7.18.12 @ 2:58AM|#

    On December 31rst of 2011 the US government is getting out lawyered by Lehman Brothers…yes the same Lehman Brothers that ceased to exist in 2008

    This is only 10 and half min into the episode.

    1. I know they are not mutually exclusive. But is Sorkin really that stupid and ill informed or does he assume his audience is?

      I guess he views his purpose as writing fairy tales to make his liberal audience feel better about themselves.

    2. The news would know these facts if they weren’t drive by bottom lines. News divisions should be immune to bottom-line machinations.

      It’s Sorkinisms all the way down.

    3. Holy Shit, the twisted rationales progressives go through must be exhausting to avoid admitting the plain fact they are just misanthropes trying to fuck up the world and doing a successful job of it.

    4. Hah, yeah, I saw that scene about financial fraud funding and immediately paused and jumped on Google. I couldn’t find any screeching articles suggesting that kind of GOP shenanigans in 2009 or 2010, and it sounded like complete bullshit (they don’t have enough money… must be the GOP who cut their funding!), but without a source one way or the other, I don’t feel comfortable complaining about it. What little I did find supported my assumption that financial fraud is largely an executive issue, and presumably the President/bureaucracy can find ways to direct money toward it.

      I also love that the supposed Republican McAvoy, when doing a year-in-review episode, seems to exclusively do stories in defense of Obama. I don’t think we’ve seen him call out Democrats yet.

      1. I also love that the supposed Republican McAvoy, when doing a year-in-review episode, seems to exclusively do stories in defense of Obama. I don’t think we’ve seen him call out Democrats yet.

        That’s just an intellectual parlor trick.

        If we make him a democrat, then duh, he’s going to defend Obama. But make the protagonist a Republican, but make him sensible. Make it so he sneers at the use of the word “socialism”… make him reasonable…

  16. “Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals. He’s a smug, condescending know-it-all who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and he’s preachy. Sorkin has spent years fueling the delusional self-regard of well-educated liberals. He might be more responsible than anyone else for the anti-democratic “everyone would agree with us if they weren’t all so stupid” attitude of the contemporary progressive movement. And age is not improving him.”

    Truth is you could take these exact same statements and replace Sorkin with Pareene.

  17. Aaron Sorkin The average liberal is why people hate liberals. He’s a smug, condescending know-it-all who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and he’s preachy. Sorkin The average liberal has spent years fueling the delusional self-regard of well-educated liberals. He might be more responsible than anyone else for the anti-democratic “everyone would agree with us if they weren’t all so stupid” attitude of the contemporary progressive movement.

    FTFY

    1. Hold up…isn’t there a difference between people who consider themselves liberals by default (either b/c they consider the alternative to be Jerry Fallwell or because George Clooney is a ‘D’), versus progressives who read Chomsky and Marx as undergrads, thought they were brilliant, and make a point of reminding people they read Chomsky and Marx as undergrads?

      1. i would agree. i’m really good friends with one of my neighbors who is definitely a liberal. he’s the kind of guy who wears a t-shirt “friends don’t let friends vote republican” and stuff like that.

        he’s a member of a labor union, a family man, and has always been a great guy and a good neighbor.

        he is definitely not this “. He’s a smug, condescending know-it-all who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and he’s preachy.”

        i used to date this liberal who was a CLASSIC liberal. worked for microsoft, always voted democrat, hung out ALMOST exclusively with liberals (and especially academic liberals – those in grad school), and she wasn’t like the above characterization either.

        granted, i don’t think either have ever described themselves as “progressive”, so maybe progressives are more likely to be like this?

        1. This:

          he is definitely not this “. He’s a smug, condescending know-it-all who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and he’s preachy.”

          is belied by this:

          he’s the kind of guy who wears a t-shirt “friends don’t let friends vote republican” and stuff like that.

      2. That is why I hate liberals in a nutshell. What mental midget is going to align themselves with a political party by “default”. I was raised a democrat and once free, I openly stated I was an independent. BTW, it also includes those on the other side of the political aisle. Problem with “default” dems or repubs is that when the hypocricy of both sides smashes them in the face I have to read/hear how somehow their guy is horribly misunderstood, misquoted, or simply can’t speak English and I MUST, MUST vote their guy in or …THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT WILL END. UGH!

        1. it makes people (Most people) comfortable IN GENERAL to “belong” to a team

          heck, even amongst nerd libertarians we see it when we get these obsessive “i can one up you with obscure nerd reference quotes” threads that go on and on

          many feel comfortable , happily coccooned in their political party of choice’s warm embrace

          you are right, many conservatives do the same thing with republicans

          i RARELY talk politics in the real world, but he was at a party i was at recently and was mentioning DADT and i pointed out to him that the reason we no longer have it is due to republicans (log cabin) pressing the issue in a long drawn out court case, and that obama did nothing until the courts forced him

          he said words to the effect of “wow, i didn’t know that. ok, republicans can do some good stuff i guess”

          iow, he’s not a close minded ideologue

          1. heck, even amongst nerd libertarians we see it when we get these obsessive “i can one up you with obscure nerd reference quotes” threads that go on and on

            That’s a game, numbnuts. If you like playing checkers, does it mean you’re joining a team?

      3. Aaron Sorkin The average liberal The average progressive elitist is why people hate liberals. He’s a smug, condescending know-it-all who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and he’s preachy. Sorkin The average liberal The average progressive elitist has spent years fueling the delusional self-regard of well-educated liberals. He might be more responsible than anyone else for the anti-democratic “everyone would agree with us if they weren’t all so stupid” attitude of the contemporary progressive movement.

        FTFY’s, again.

        Point taken. There is a difference between “progrssive elitists” like Sorkin and average run of the mill “liberals” such as the typical democratic voter. Unfortunately the terms “progressive”, “liberal”, “left-winger”, etc. get used interchangeably so often that I sometimes fall into the trap of doing that myself.

        The main thing is Sorkin’s not alone. Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Paul Krugman, E.J. Dionne, Keith Olberman. I could probably go on, but you get the idea. Punchable faces aren’t the only things they have in common, they’re all perfectly described by the above paragraph.

  18. “I tried watching the fourth episode to see how terrible it was (also watched the first two, which were hilariously bad), and had to stop after a certain scene. The wonderful Kathryn Hahn is drunk in Jeff Daniels’ apartment, ready for a wild night, and she goes to freshen up. He reaches in to her purse and finds a gun. He then goes off on her, treating her like a psycho, once again immediately recalling statistics about how rapists will often get the gun for themselves. ”

    man, i would LOVE to see those statistics, mr sorkin

    or was he implicitly showing a republican spouting false statistics (3 dimensional chess) to impugn his credibility, while also knowing most people would accept that the stats are bona fide

    one thing i know

    1) a hell of a lot of women carry concealed where i live/work
    2) i’ve investigated many rapes
    3) i’ve never investigated a rape where a woman was carrying, or even heard of such a thing happening

    the stats in general regarding “civilians” having their CCW gun used against them … it’s very very very rare

    it more commonly happens to cops, but then cops have to move in and arrest people, and that’s where it usually happens. different dynamics.

    and again, i’ve investigated scores of incidents where somebody was carrying a gun and either brandished it in self defense, or otherwise used it, and in none did the person get disarmed

    1. One of the more memorable story lines on Homicide: Life on the Street was that of a beat cop who got his gun taken away from him and blinded from the accident. Nothing he did wrong and shown to have been a competent guy in several episodes before that, and that’s what kind of fucked with the others the most. It was one of the true story elements of the book the show was based upon, so even fiction, I saw it as being quite believable. It blew my mind when I realized the same actor who played that character was Beecher in Oz.

    2. There we go with the “civilians” again?

  19. Who’s Aaron Sorkin?

  20. My Democrat wife loves the show, and we’ve discussed this very topic. For me, the implausible political setup (McAvoy as a Republican) are a minor flaw.

    The overall insanely bad writing makes the show unwatchable for me. It reminds me of George Lucas writing the last three Star Wars sequels. The kind of writing that your average 8th grader would do.

  21. No hat tip?

    Play it your, reason

  22. Dude seems to be a bit full of himself lol.

    http://www.New-Anon.tk

    1. Now there’s the anon-bot we’ve all come to know and love.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.