and in the process of all that public complaining, the ILAC helped make JS one of the most popular TV shows in MTV history. great job

I read the book a few years ago, just a year after my first son came into this world. Unlike mothers, a father's 'bonding' if you will, is a evolving process. With the notion of "a father's love" still needing to be fully defined for me, the book opened the doors. My heart ached after almost every page.

As a Canadian with Italian ancestory, I could care less about ethnic portrayals on TV (as you can tell from my handle). My parents are these 'not-in-our-name types), and my answer to them has always been 'the mafia exists, and guess what? Italians are part of it!" If it makes for good TV or cinema, that's fine with me.

Jersey shore, on the other hand, should be cancelled because it sucks and makes the brain dead kids who watch these semi-retarded "Guidos" (they're called Ginos in Canada) even dumber. But to Italian Americans who complain about these stereotypes, I'd say to take it up with their parents. There would be no show if people (and not just Italians) didn't raise barely literate, narcissistic jackasses and, even worse, other parents kept an eye on the jackasses their own kids watch on TV

Excellent point. I hardly remember the original as I was only 8, but I remember being transfixed by it. In the run up to the show, before it aired, I read some literature on the original and learned (as I couldn't have realized as a child) that it was an allegory of fascism and how when it comes (as anyone who has studied Mussolini or the early stages of nazism knows) it comes on parade, masked as a savior and revolution of young and idealistic progressives. From my understanding ( I PVRed it and will watch it tonight) the ABC show doesn't differ much from that original theme. The Obamamaniacs obviously aren't comfortable with what this reminds them of. This seems like purely a case of the truth hurting..

In the New Republic review, the author states not just that the show is "a love letter to tea party protesters," and indicative of right-wingers "world view" but also that he's "really not sure how this made it onto network television."

Exactly. How is it possible that a show with supposedly conservative or libertarian principles (we'll see about that in the end -- just as anyone who watched all seasons of 24 knows all too well) get on mainstream TV? It's madness, right?
Talk about a statement indicative of someone's world view, eh?

Even the pleasure of watching Janean Garofalo get verbally b-itch slapped by Jack Baur can’t save this show for me. I’m done with it.

As I mentioned in a previous post weeks ago, since season four, I’ve been reduced to the back-alley crackhead looking for one more fix. I knew deep down it was doing me no good, but repetition in itself can be addictive and so I watched each season regress. It’s evil capitalist bankers behind it all. It’s the President of the U.S. himself pulling the strings. No, it’s Jack’s own father. And now, yes, a cabal of evil capitalist Halliburton-like corporations -- again. Yawn.

This season jumped the shark (or should I say, ‘stormed the White House’) on itself more than a couple times. Deranged Jonas Hodges is one thing, but trying to convince American viewers that ordinary fellow Americans working for a private military contractor – Hodge’s employee scientists, engineers, soldiers, all with families I presume -- could be actively complicit the terrorist deaths of their fellow citizens, is quite another. Yeah, there’s homegrown Tim Mcveigh’s (and Bill Ayers’ I should add) but hundreds, maybe thousands of them working together on the production of a domestic terror attack. Oh, F’n please. It’s an insult.

More insulting is this stale Hollywood cliché of Western capitalist interests as the puppet masters of global terror. In the name of the poison word, ‘tolerance,’ the TV-film industry continues to be obsessed with this deflection. Meanwhile, the victims of New York, London, Madrid, Tel Aviv, Tanzania & Kenya, Bali, Mumbai, Chechnya, Beslam, Amman -- and on and on and on from every corner of the earth – all have something in common that doesn’t involve a cabal of white, western, corporate, Armani suit-wearing warlords who discuss their evil conspiracies on freakin’ MSM Messenger like a bunch of fanboys lipping over World of Warcraft.

Bye 24. Tonight was divine intervention.

I tuned in last night to see if he would go after Obama's "how do you say it in Austrian" comment --something that would have made prime Daily Show fodder for successive episodes under Bush. I was about 5 minutes late, so I don't know if he touched on it at the start or if he did it the night before. Somehow I doubt it. Anyone know?
later in the show I was amused at how he disguises his biases while attempting at bipartisanship humor supposedly at Obama's expense. I'm referring at the bit where he's 'making fun' of European media for gushing over Obama's during his visit (interesting how this wasn't a major laughing point when the US media was and continues to be tank for Obama). Even though he was making fun of the Euro's, the shtik purposefully emphasized Obama's messsiah-like effect on people, thereby reinforcing that there must be some truth to it. It's like JS or SNL doing a sketch satirizing Obama's supposed "coolness' or oratory skills. That's about as close as they can bring themselves to "making fun" of him -- by exaggerating qualities they convinced themselves they already love about him. Sad for creativity's sake, if nothing else.

No need to give it up. I won't.

Politically and on most social issues I'm proudly conservative. But when it comes to entertainment and media, 'hands off.' Frankly, I liked Shapiro a lot better when he was exposing university indoctrination.
This is two or three columns in a row, now, where he aggressively attacks freedom of expression. Without saying it, his tone borders dangerously close to being pro-censorship. Frankly, Ben, when you flirt with this issue you can sound quite ridiculous.

"Men who beat women aren’t going to stop beating women because they see Keira Knightley getting kicked in the stomach - in all likelihood, they’ll beat women more, fantasizing about Keira Knightley."

Seriously, dude? The latter half of that statement can actually come out of a serious thinker? What stawman nonsense.
The message obviously isn't meant for wife-beaters. It's aimed at rousing everyone else, such the indifferent, or even those who protect such men, including the female victims themselves.

And oh, Andrew is 100% correct. More laughing, regardless of how it's generated, is not the problem in this world. Quite the opposite, actually. It's the fanatics who refuse to find any humor in life, love and religion that are terrorizing citizens in every corner of the earth.

Good column. Shapiro missed the mark on this one. I have no time for rap and despise most of the hardcore gangsta' stuff (and am indifferent to the rest). But I also admit that I don't understand it, so I refrain from passing judgement. I just know I don't like it. It's not music to me me. Is it art? Again, not to me, but neither are most of the paintings hanging in an art gallery. But what do I know about painting? Shapiro's logic is problematic because, while I'd like deep down to agree with him on rap, if I took his thesis and applied it to film -- say, a violent movie like Reservoir Dogs -- the argument falls complete flat, at least for me. When it's all said and done, is there much difference in the messages between rap and The Godfather (or to be more contemporary, the Sopranos). Sure, one has a hollywood sheen on it and the other more crude and raw, but in terms of romanticizing or projecting violence how different are they? They're both interpretations of very real American subcultures in all their glory, horror and tragedy. But is anyone going to seriously argue that the Godfather is crap? As you can tell by my handle, I'm a big fan. My Italian parents, on the other hand, dislike how the Godfather portrays Italians. But even still, neither of them ever argued that they weren't fantastic 'films.'
Not to hammer on Shapiro (I read his bio and it's remarkable what he's achieved in his short life), but the argument seems too superficial.

Shapiro, you had your say. Rebutting a friendly rebuttal with most of your same original points is pretty cheesy. I even agree with some of those points as I have no time for rap -- or at least 80 percent of it. It's not that I take great offence, it just aint my thang. But seriously, getting all categorical about art or entertainment is weak, dude. By your standards, why stop at rap? How many great films would fail your test? Probably anything Tarantino ever made, which might be just fine for you, but simply calling it 'crap' is intellectually dishonest.