In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« The Blog of Frederic Germay
"Let’s Go Sue the Democratic Party!" [Boston Legal]
This episode highlighted one of the many reasons I am sad that a larger audience doesn’t view “Boston Legal”. If more of mainstream America were exposed to, and influenced by, the extremely provocative, inspiring, and controversial cases that “Boston Legal” consistently addresses; I think we might see more change in this country. However, many viewers claim that the detrimental factor of “Boston Legal” is that it serves merely as a soapbox for the beyond-the-line ideas that creator David Shore wants to broadcast out into the world. This is much like Aaron Sorkin with “The West Wing,” and “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.” Call it what you will, but almost every episode of BL that addresses such radical ideas and offer even more radical proposals leaves me thinking how the world would change if this program wasn’t just fiction.
Coming off the heels of the engaging Supreme Court case episode, Alan Shore goes even further by filing a lawsuit against the Democratic Party. This case addressed the strangeness concerning how Super-delegates can overrule the popular vote by voting against their district’s choice. Given the portrayal of the obnoxious Mitchie, I sincerely wonder if there are many more delegates just like him. I violently despise the idea of my vote being overruled by some twerp who thinks they know better.
The opposing counsel argued that the Democratic Party was allowed to have such rules due to their status as a private organization. Also he claimed that this is what has kept out clearly incompetent candidates out of the race, despite the popular vote. Regardless, I believe that the American people should have more than just a suggestion in who really wins the vote. It doesn’t seem fair at all to me.
The personal confrontation between Alan and Shirley was extremely entertaining to me. Many people believe that Obama has a lack of experience among other things, but another equally valid point is that we’ve had two family dynasties running the white house for decades now, and maybe it’s time for change. Either way, I found their argument to be equally compelling on both sides and delightfully entertaining.
Concerning the subplot of cloning meat, I was completely unaware that these items were already on our food shelves. I do believe that cloned meat should be appropriately labeled as such, if not for health reasons, then for religious ones. Many religions are strongly against clones, and I think that they should be at least allowed the knowledge of what is cloned, so that they wouldn’t be hypocrites by accident and unknowingly eat the meat anyways.
Towards the end of the episode, “Boston Legal” took the time to once again reinforce the Denny-Alan relationship. I was genuinely touched by the open sincerity of the love between them. Both William Shatner and James Spader performed excellent acting. Also, I have to point out that I am highly impressed with the opposing counsel in this program. They always seem to serve equally valid points and have quite brilliant closing arguements, although not as good as Alan’s. Due the outstanding quality of this episode, I am inclined to give it a rating of 9.5/10.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2008 4:00 PM
|
|
Boston Legal was created by David E. Kelley.
|
|
May 1, 2008 8:20 PM
|
Mr. David E. Kelley has worked on (L.A. Law) and created some truly great series (Picket Fences, Chicago Hope, Ally McBeal, The Practice, Boston Public, and Boston Legal); however, I believe that Boston Legal misses more than it hits, as opposed to his earlier work on L.A. Law, Picket Fences, and Chicago Hope (and isn't it great to see Rocky Carroll and Mark Harmon together again on NCIS after their great work on Hope).
He's still great at pressing the "hot-button" issues, but at what cost? Over-population and over-fishing are going to wreak havoc on the world's billions of truly poor without such options as the Kelley despised cloned meat, genetically modified wheat, corn, and other grains, and farm raised and highly medicated chicken, pork, beef, and fish issues. I know if I were one of the world's desperately hungry or sick, I wouldn't like having this nonsense played out in a forum that many refer to as the "boob tube." A medium where the self-righteous believe it is "their" right to deny the hopes and dreams of many people who never asked to be born into this convoluted world of multiple religions, social injustices, areas of war-torn strife (many due to those religions), totalitarian regimes, or a country like the U.S. where an average (not a two-faced millionaire of one of the only two parties) person will ever become President.
I don't have the answers, but everyone on our planet deserves the chance of a better life, even if it means relying on such new and innovative methods of growing and raising food--no matter the opposition from religions, political agendas, or TV writers. I guess these moralists have never had to eat dirt (like the poor in Haiti -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512/ ) just to try and fool their stomachs that they are full of something, and then there are those in North Korea who are even resorting to cannibalism to survive -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41966-2003Oct3?language=printer .
|
|
May 1, 2008 10:05 PM
|
Thankyou Pgoody, I guess I meshed Kelley and Alan Shore together to form David Shore. Sorry about that.
Jawick, I'm beginning to think that everything might offend the inner lawyer in you. You argue your case well, and I commend you for that. However, once again you failed to notice my actual arguement. I didn't claim that cloned meat shouldn't be placed on shelves. Surely those in impoverished countries would be willing to eat anything, regardless of it's parentage.
What I did argue was that it should be appropriately labeled as such. I don't think that is too much to ask. As for the religious folk, I believe they have every right to know what they are eating -- just like the cloners apparently have the right to clone the meat to begin with.
Thanks for commenting, I truly do appreciate it.
|
|
May 6, 2008 3:47 PM
|
Jawick, I'm beginning to think that you have an inner lawyer in you. You argue your case well, and I commend you for that. However, once again you failed to notice my actual arguement. I didn't claim that cloned meat shouldn't be placed on shelves. Surely those in impoverished countries would be willing to eat anything, regardless of it's parentage.
What I did argue was that it should be appropriately labeled as such. I don't think that is too much to ask. As for the religious folk, I believe they have every right to know what they are eating -- just like the cloners apparently have the right to clone the meat to begin with.
Thanks for commenting, I truly do appreciate it.
|
|
May 6, 2008 3:54 PM
|
|
|
