Boston legal monologue on US patriotism

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I saw the show. (Spader!) and although I thought some of it was simplistic, I thought it raised a lot of valid questions about the definition of patriotism, how we are being pushed toward thinking of any dissent as being unpatriotic, how the right wing talk shows (Hannity) are beating the drum that even though you might think the war was wrong, you have a moral obligation to back the President in whatever he does so the rest of the world sees us as unified. I particularly liked the Adlai Stevenson quote that it is easier to fight for principles than to live by them. We have not lost the right to define patriotism as we see fit.

For many people, there are serious questions about the way the President is handling his job. Those questions go beyond Bush hating. We're not exactly giving the Democrats a pass here.

To watch, to question, to demand accountability, to voice our objections, to say this is wrong when we believe it is--isn't that supposed to be the hallmark of the type of democracy we advocate around the world? And it's up to the President's supporters to tell us we're all wet. Open discussion, open support, open dissent--in short, just plain open.

United we stand--except when we think it is wrong. Then we are no longer under that obligation.
 
I can relate to this. I demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq. If you don't support the President, you can still be patriotic. There's too much of this mentality that if you don't support the President or you're a liberal, you're not patriotic. Patriotism isn't the property of the right wing of the Republican Party. I didn't see this show. It looks like I missed a good one.
 
I would like to see some quotes and examples, some evidence of this apparent rampant crushing of dissent.

I remember hearing often after September 11 was how "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - just like the IRA and PLO were heroic resistance groups.
 
Not the law. Just the attitude, the propaganda, is dismaying. It's an ideological fight as to who is going to control the language, the definitions, the agenda. We're just fighting back. Just as I expect the right to fight the left's propaganda.

9/11 and its aftermath, and even previous to it, has shown a split in Americans as to what we expect the country to be. And this call for unanimous support has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
It is to gloss over a failing presidency. It's disingenuous.

Maybe it's not so bad. Maybe it's healthy to separate the myth of America from its reality--that we do not always live up to the principles we give lip service to, that sometimes we value our symbols more than our substance, that sometimes we look through rosy glasses that do not reflect reality. I don't judge America based on any other country. I judge us purely on what we say and then what we do. I judge this country the same way I judge myself and right now, I find both of us wanting.
 
The whole speech is a little ironic. The ability to go on national TV at primetime and express these views *is* the definition of free speech.

To quote the lawyer Shore:
Really long speeches make me so tired sometimes.
Click to expand...
Me too.
 
Legally, yes. I just find the ideological, social, cultural -- whatever you want to call it--implications interesting.
 
BonosSaint said:
Not the law. Just the attitude, the propaganda, is dismaying. It's an ideological fight as to who is going to control the language, the definitions, the agenda. We're just fighting back. Just as I expect the right to fight the left's propaganda.

9/11 and its aftermath, and even previous to it, has shown a split in Americans as to what we expect the country to be. And this call for unanimous support has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
It is to gloss over a failing presidency. It's disingenuous.

Maybe it's not so bad. Maybe it's healthy to separate the myth of America from its reality--that we do not always live up to the principles we give lip service to, that sometimes we value our symbols more than our substance, that sometimes we look through rosy glasses that do not reflect reality. I don't judge America based on any other country. I judge us purely on what we say and then what we do. I judge this country the same way I judge myself and right now, I find both of us wanting.
Click to expand...


Very well said, you should write for our show. Wow I like our show being mentioned around here, I hope all you lovely folks will check out my show on Tuesday. That's 10 PM Eastern time. I have to put up with Shatner every day, so have some sympathy.
 
let's keep the liberal talk out of free your mind, and back in the gutter where it belongs, guys.
 
Last night's episode was fantastic, very interesting storyline about an African American man who was "staring at houses" in an all white neighborhood who wouldn't show an ID to a police officer and resisted arrest. Very well done, I love that show. It's socially relevant and insane and sexy all at the same time. You all need to be watching this show! :wink:
 
The show actually moves back and forth for drama to comedy really well. Sometimes it's abrupt, but it is done that way on purpose for dramatic effect. I also enjoy how there is actual character development.
The liberal lens of the show is beautiful too. Plus, Shatner is the shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
876
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
cobl04
New Zealander and Australian champion DOMINATES and embarrasses NASCAR field on debut
Replies
2
Views
517
cobl04
cobl04
Hollow Island
Daniel Lanois & Marc Maron
Replies
7
Views
1K
lazarus
lazarus
U2AlwaysForever
Larry Mullen Jr absent for 2023 tour.....
Replies
7
Views
1K
jphelmet
jphelmet

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom