I'm bothered by an obvious aspersion.
>the implication was clear. america was not seen in a good light
>by the writers of the script.
Possibly, but I hesitate to impute any particular motive. Perhaps the writer
had been misinformed. Perhaps the line was a throwaway, added without much
thought. I find SB scripts to be well written, though, so I doubt it was mere
carelessness.
>so what? i didn't see any need to be insulted should they have
>been factually correct.
I do. The implication that NRA/ARA membership is for the violent is a
misrepresentation, and it is nettlesome. And I would be equally bothered if
Karen Milner had made reference to the "bomb-throwing National Civil
Liberties Union" or "murderous American Baptist Church."
>let's not castigate the makers of fantasyland.
This is a curious thing to say; perhaps you don't quite mean that. We cannot
be critical of SB? We cannot be critical of Disney? Or the makers of
"Married, with Children" or "Money Train" or the authors of the Japanese
comic "Rape Man"? Of course we can. The US Constitution's First Amendment
guarantees TV and movie producers the right to create their shows and us the
right to criticize them. Today (for about a half an hour more) is the
anniversary of the Bill of Rights, an anniversary that few seem to remember.
--Arthur
ack@skylee.com