TV Infested By 'Weeds' |
Posted by CN Staff on August 11, 2005 at 22:23:54 PT By Brent Bozell Source: Town Hall.com USA -- Showtime, the pay-cable giant owned by Viacom, must be seeking a perfect schedule of "edgy" sleaze. They have shows for gay men and shows for the lesbians; they feature Penn and Teller's snarky show for the cocky atheists who want to use the F-word to describe Mother Teresa; and now they've added a new one, a "dramedy" series centered on a lovable suburban mom who's also a drug dealer. "Weeds" is the new show, starring Mary-Louise Parker as a suburban California homemaker who's shocked by the sudden death of her husband. To make ends meet, the sympathetic widow with no income becomes the town marijuana merchant. Predictably, "Weeds" has earned the adoration of TV critics, who can never seem to get enough of what they call "splendid dark satire." One critic said it made "Desperate Housewives" look like "Leave It to Beaver." Parker said she loved doing the show because it was "unapologetically dark" and so "you can't necessarily make judgments on the characters." For example, one pothead character extols a new "medical marijuana" facility nearby as better than Amsterdam, "because you don't have to visit the Anne Frank house and pretend to be all sad." Another example: Our star sells marijuana to a teenager on the compassionate condition that he not re-sell it to any younger kids. "It seemed like exactly the right thing for us," says Robert Greenblatt, Showtime's president of entertainment. "It was something that was inherently dangerous and edgy, and we had to approach it in the right way, but we never shied away from it." Corrupting society and championing illegal acts as harmless is all in a day's work at Viacom. It's always fun to squeeze a few laughs out of selling sandwich bags of dope. Pot is "so in the zeitgeist," claimed series creator Jenji Kohan, and "I thought of a female sort of anti-hero who did something risky, but not too offensive. She couldn't be a coke dealer." In other words, trafficking in one illegal substance is beyond the pale; in another, it's "edgy" and "exactly the right thing for us." Kohan proclaimed to critics that she wanted to explore "postconventional morality" and is "perfectly comfortable saying that I believe [pot] should probably be legalized, regulated and taxed." But she still thinks making cute, giggly pictures about drug-dealing at the kids' soccer games isn't pro-drug, and says with a straight face: "We don't vilify. We present them as is, and I'm really proud to have remained neutral." The funny thing is that in the real world, pot ain't so hot. The Supreme Court recently quashed the effort to spread the fad of "medical marijuana" around, and drug czar John Walters, who's focused quite a bit of energy on marijuana, says that decision has taken the wind out of the sails of medical-marijuana bills in state legislatures. According to a major 2003 study, use of marijuana among 8th, 10th and 12th graders has declined significantly from 2001 to 2003. The federal government also just issued a report explaining how we can curb drug abuse through advertising. The vast majority of youth ages 12 to 17 are receiving drug and alcohol prevention messages from TV, radio, posters and pamphlets, and those who have been exposed to such messages are significantly less likely to abuse drugs. But isn't it somewhat perverse that our tax dollars need to go to drug-prevention messages on television, in part to counter our drug-glamorizing TV programs? Deep at the heart of "Weeds" (and the shows that it apes, from "Desperate Housewives" to "The Sopranos") is a very cynical notion that no one actually lives a conventionally moral life, especially in the suburbs. Star Mary-Louise Parker explained the show was about "the myth of suburbia ... and how it seems like normalcy and perfection and what is actually behind that, how that actually doesn't exist." You can almost feel the hate coming out of Kohan against suburban neighborhoods: "They all look pretty, but they're built like crap. It's the same house over and over, all style, no substance. Everything in their world is mass-marketed. There, homes are full of condo furniture, which looks perfect at first, but it's just trash." Left unspoken: unlike my home. How insulting. These Hollywood writers are entering the American household while condescendingly trashing its values, not because they're not grounded in sound moral principles, but because they are. Get over yourself, you pompous haters. But maybe I'm overreacting. It should be noted that Showtime did exercise some restraint in its pursuit of shock. At least, the drug dealer doesn't sell ... cigarettes. Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com member group. Copyright: 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc. Source: Town Hall.com (DC) Related Articles & Web Site: Showtime's Weeds Conservative US Braced for Drugs & The Suburbs Some Wish TV Show Would Go Up in Smoke Some Words About 'Weeds' Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #8 posted by FoM on August 12, 2005 at 09:58:17 PT |
Labels mean nothing because they vary in meaning. Conservative can mean more then one thing. Conservative in the current administration means don't do anything that the religious right says is wrong. I am conservative in the fact that wasting money fighting a war in a foreign country is a waste of money and life. I also believe we have an obligation to care for those less fortunate then us. I don't want to live in a country that lets people just die because they are to poor or a victim and circumstance to be push away and disguarded. I believe in God and I believe we must care for those less fortunate. I won't pass judgment on another person who lives differently then I believe is right for me. Labels are not real in my opinion. I am not political because no party gets it as far as I am concerned. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #7 posted by Pete Guither on August 12, 2005 at 09:29:17 PT:
|
Vitamin T -- I actually don't think "conservatives" in general are for the nanny-state socialism of the war on drugs. It's really a by-product of the social conservative movement and their desire to legislate "morality." The traditional conservative with libertarian leanings (who believes in small government, fiscal responsibility, individual freedom and responsibility) is opposed to the excesses of the drug war. The problem is that too many of these libertarian conservatives have been willing to "go along" with the morality police conservatives in order to build a power base (thinking that the drug thing isn't that big a deal to give up in order to gain power). They're starting to get a bit restless, however, and there's some potential there. Of course, the liberals/Democrats haven't been any better. Gotta focus on abortion and affirmative action, and not get distrated by these hippie pot smokers with cancer, or we might appear soft on crime. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by VitaminT on August 12, 2005 at 07:52:52 PT |
Why are "conservatives" so committed to the Nanny-State Socialism of the War on Drugs!?! And so UN-committed to the precept of individual freedom and responsibility. Has religous fanaticism destroyed these fundemental principles of conservative thought? Begging the question: Are true conservatives so drunk w/ power that they willingly abandon principle to preserve that power? Sounds like addiction to me! [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #5 posted by runderwo on August 12, 2005 at 07:28:33 PT |
"According to a major 2003 study, use of marijuana among 8th, 10th and 12th graders has declined significantly from 2001 to 2003." Reported use? Or use as assessed by emergency room visits? Both statistics are flawed. "The Supreme Court recently quashed the effort to spread the fad of "medical marijuana" around," No, the "fad" is spreading on its own merits as are shown again and again in medical studies. The Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of the status quo instead of the Constitution, that's all. "... and drug czar John Walters, who's focused quite a bit of energy on marijuana," Poor guy. What a wasted life. "... says that decision has taken the wind out of the sails of medical-marijuana bills in state legislatures." That's funny, because I could swear several state bills have passed since the SC decision. " The federal government also just issued a report explaining how we can curb drug abuse through advertising. " Yeah, it's called being realistic about the harms of a particular substance in order to gain credibility, as opposed to demonizing it in an attempt to scare people into total abstinence. "The vast majority of youth ages 12 to 17 are receiving drug and alcohol prevention messages from TV, radio, posters and pamphlets, and those who have been exposed to such messages are significantly less likely to abuse drugs." Hah. I'd like to see him back this claim up. As far as I know, most kids think they are a joke. "But isn't it somewhat perverse that our tax dollars need to go to drug-prevention messages on television," Yes. Oh wait... "... in part to counter our drug-glamorizing TV programs? " Hey, speech is speech. If you don't like it, don't buy it. You know, free market and all that? It's not like your tax dollars are subsidizing Showtime. "But maybe I'm overreacting." Yes. Other people's marijuana use have given you psychosis and irrational paranoia like so many other conservatives. It's an interesting phenomenon restricted solely to cannabis. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #4 posted by cornoir on August 12, 2005 at 06:44:37 PT |
Found this interesting article on the Meida Research Center website by L. Brent Bozell III (hell even the name sounds elitest -sorry little rant). Its title: Bush and Coke vs. Gore and Pot It is interesting to read his rant especially considering we now have evidence that George Bush did indeed try pot after he admantantly denied taking pot. Try switching Bush's and Gore's name and see if the story does not sound a lot funnier. http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2000/col20000203.asp People would be a lot more careful in sounding so venoumous if they remember that what you post on the Internet is available for all the World and its people to access, what kind of legacy is such closed mindness going to leave on the memory of those that read this after their authors are gone. Kind of like Tricky Dick did, and it has all been downhill from that. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on August 12, 2005 at 04:05:31 PT:
|
*"These Hollywood writers are entering the American household..."* The show is on cable. If you don't subscribe, you can't get the show. And if you do get cable? You don't have to watch it. It's that simple. Those 'Hollywood writers' are not 'entering' any place they aren't invited courtesy of that subscription. And if/when it comes out on DVD? You don't have to buy it if you don't want to. I mean, it's not as if it were on *commercial TV*. You know, where the corporately controlled major networks are in cahoots with their NeoConservative friends in power to try to ram their biases and outright lies into our brains at every opportunity? And stifle any dissent that challenges those biases and lies via character assassination? The same kind of character assassination Mr. Bozell attempts to employ in this article? If anything is insulted here, it is the public's intelligence by his assumption of moral proctorhood for the rest of us. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #2 posted by OverwhelmSam on August 12, 2005 at 02:45:29 PT |
They'll stop at nothing to persecute marijuana users. I've got a plan (sung to the tune I've got a dream). Move to middle America and marry a prohibitionist. Educate them and your offspring about marijuana. Send them to college majoring in Political Science. Run them for office and take over the government. If we can't get them to change the law, we'll breed them out of existence. :} [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by herbdoc215 on August 11, 2005 at 22:44:03 PT |
This gem is on CC and forums, just wanted to post it here in case anybody needs to know;) The DEA are on a roll now (dumbass nazi pigs) it seems that all they needed was enough rope. Hell after this dog and pony show why even worry for a minute about going to jail anymore? Sure looks to me like post 9-11 USA just became ONE BIG JAIL with a few on work release. Wake-up People, we ain't doing nothing wrong and they can kiss my ass and I'm proud to tell'em so! Peace, steve Gentlemen(and woman:) don't read others mail. FROM CC FORUM.... First, I want to clarify that the DEA took photos of the unopened envelopes in two mail box addresses, neither of which were the BCMP store or CC magazine. They were not allowed to open mail. Therefore, anyone who did not put their address anywhere on the outside of the envelope will likely not receive this DEA mail. (Please let us know if you do.) THE DEA HAS OFFICES IN VANCOUVER. Do not think that the DEA cannot do this from within Canada. The Vancouver Police are, and I quote, "working hand in glove with the DEA" and "fully cooperating together". There is no address given on the DEA form, but they ask you to send a Western Union or Money Gram of $100 to "SAMANTHA CHRISTIE" or "THOMAS CHAMBERS" or "SAM WOODCHUCK" etc. "in VANCOUVER". They all tell you to use the code word "SWAP". They say you should not use a PO box in your address -- the reason being, they can't search a PO box for grow ops. WESTERN UNION HEADQUARTERS is working with the DEA. WE KNOW THIS. That's why they ask you to use it. When you send a Western Union, you have to show ID, you give your home address, phone number, location, everything the DEA needs to find you. And anyone using the key word SWAP... they'll have you right on the spot. PLEASE BE CAREFUL!!! Tell everyone you know to NOT respond to any mail from anyone claiming to be Marc Emery Direct! We will personally post ANY information ourselves, here, and through www.EmerySeeds.com and www.CannabisCulture.com. -------------------- Now we need YOUR help. Assistant Editor, Cannabis Culture magazine Jodie@cannabisculture.com [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |