Eh, I don't think you can say the Christians "co-opted" him. There were plenty of Jews involved with the early church.

To me, the more troubling this is that they would shoot the film.

Keeping with the motif, it really should be called after a location. My personal nomination is Weinerland.

Silly me. Here I was thinking that it wasn't possible to be more condescending than a character on an Aaron Sorkin show.

But even if you wanted to do it because you thought filming the inside of an anaconda would draw a bunch of viewers, it still would have worked better to stuff a camera inside a big hunk of fresh meat or something.

Why not just like ... put a camera inside something that is easy for them to ingest?

Yep, well, good riddance.

Except, you know, even the Tea Party loons can manage to find the spectacularly glaring hole in that logic.

Yeah, it's pretty dumb, especially considering some of the gems that Sorkin's generation has given us.

That still could look very different than what we've seen from the House however. There is recognition there that Congress is seen in an even more dim light than the President is currently, and I think they are aware that part of it is the House of Representative's insistence on passing pointless bills.

This is actually a good political strategy for keeping the base hot and bothered.

Does "Candidtaes" sound like a pootieism to anyone else?

I actually think they aren't. If only because if they had ever been in the same room the smugness and intellectual superiority would have been so densely concentrated that it would have caused a universe ending paradox, much like would happen if someone ever figured out how to divide by zero.

I dunno, maybe it was my paranoia, but I definitely saw a little bit of heavy handedness in Moneyball. Not as it pertained to how backhanded he was towards Joe Morgan, because you can never bash Joe Morgan too much, but definitely with how he slammed the broader baseball media. A lot of the "establishment" guys…

That's an advantage to writing the type of stuff that he writes. Many people will never get tired of having their views on the world reaffirmed, even if it largely consists of having the same set of speeches and plot points being remixed over and over again.

I think you'd have to go with Delilah or Sapphira.

This is why I've decided I don't like Sorkin. When you agree with the stance he's making in his self-aggrandizing way, it's so much feel good popcorn.

The best way to head that off is for people to not read stories that reinforce their way of seeing the world with blinders on from the get go. The first skeptics about any story that seems to fit the narrative a group wants to establish oh-so-neatly should be the group, because if you wait for people who have ulterior…

I do agree, though it seems like some people here are establishing a false dichotomy as if an apology to the specific fraternity, and acknowledgement of their frustrations over their treatment in this specific situation would somehow hurt sexual assault victims or would somehow provide that fraternity with blanket…

This is where they move more into the "faith" aspect of the argument, but essentially, the idea is that suffering wouldn't have ever come into existence at all without mankind making immoral choices.