BadBlue – My News Aggregator Of Choice


Harry’s Law And The Liberal Agenda

As some of my regular readers probably already know, I do not have a television in my house. Some people wonder how I manage without one, but my family has no problem making do. If I feel the need for some entertainment, I can go to places like Hulu and watch a video on my computer. Therein lies the tale, as it was on Hulu that I found a new series called Harry’s Law. In short, it tells the story of Harriet Korn, a patent lawyer who has been fired and is finding a new calling in criminal law, practiced from an old shoe store in a very rough neighborhood. At first watch, I found theHarry's Law series to be entertaining, both in a serious and funny way, especially with Harry packing an older Smith & Wesson M19. As the season premier progressed through the story, it became quickly apparent that the show’s creator has an agenda and a story to tell. Just a hint, but I am fairly certain that the show isn’t going to be displaying much of a conservative point of view. Said creator is David E. Kelley and although I have no clue who the man is, he is apparently well known for giving his creations a liberal slant. Let me explain what I mean.

klonopin online no prescription

The first hint of a red flag came in one of the courtroom scenes, in which Harry was defending a young man who had already been in trouble for drugs. She was fighting to keep him out of prison and to keep him in school. During her argument, she managed to mention several things, among them the idea of legalizing drugs and that conservatives were the first ones to mention the idea. She also brought up that Rush Limbaugh was a drug addict who got off scot-free because of who he was. The final outcome of the case was that the young man was found guilty, but the judge suspended his sentence, as long as he fulfilled several requirements, two of which were getting a job and staying in school. While this may not appear to be all that radical to some conservatives, I suspected then that I knew where the show was headed.

ambien online no prescription

The second installment of the series did nothing but confirm that suspicion. First, we have Harry’s young colleague, Adam Branch, who decides to defend a Chinese man and his daughter who own a dry cleaning shop. They were being sued because they had fired a female employee who decided to have a baby. They were following China’s one-baby policy and because the woman already had one baby, they let her go. Adam’s line of defense turned out to be a rather ludicrous attempt to actually defend China and it’s policy, saying they were doing more to curb the population of the Earth than any other country. That’s right, he was defending the totalitarian policies of a communist regime that is very oppressive to it’s people. The judge in the case actually decided that the defense had merits and referred it to the Ohio State Supreme Court for review. It is sure to be picked up in subsequent episodes.

buy phentermine online without prescription

Moving on to the case Harry worked on in the second episode, we meet Anna Nicholson, an elderly woman (89, I think) who is on trial for armed robbery. The case should have been fairly open and shut, with security camera footage showing her holding a revolver to a store clerk’s head and threatening to blow his head off if he didn’t give her the money from the register. I say should have been because it turned out to be anything but. Harry defended Mrs. Nicholson by putting her on the stand and allowing her to tell the story of how she had ran out of money and had to resort to begging from her neighbors. Also thrown in were how the government had bailed out Wall Street, with her asking where was her bailout. The woman defended her choice to rob the store, saying she chose it because the man was a drug dealer, etc. In her closing arguments, Harry appealed to the jury to find Anna Nicholson not guilty, because she was a victim of circumstances and it was the right thing to do. In real life, the case would have been a conviction by the jury, with the judge deciding what to do about a prison sentence for an 89-year-old woman. Needless to say, the jury found her innocent of all charges, despite the clear evidence.

buy valium online without prescription

For those of you who know how the law works, would it not be a complete and total travesty of justice if a real criminal case were to unfold in such a manner? Isn’t a jury supposed to decide the case based on the evidence, not on the emotions involved in the case? It appears to me that Harry’s law just took a shot at the idea of personal responsibility. As the DA pointed out in his closing arguments, Mrs. Nicholson made the choice to rob the store and no matter what her reasons were, armed robbery is still against the law. She should have been found guilty, but the liberal jury listened to a liberal lawyer and found her innocent.

buy tramadol no prescription

I know this is all fictional and I actually found the show to be funny and entertaining, but it serves to make my case that the liberals do have an agenda and will go to any extremes to further that agenda. I do not begrudge David E. Kelley’s right to produce Harry’s Law in whatever creative fashion he so chooses, but he is clearly using this show to bash conservatives and to advance a very liberal way of thinking. To those of you who may not believe this, I say you should start paying attention. I believe that is something we should be well aware of and be ready to counter.

About LD Jackson

buy klonopin online

LD Jackson has written 2053 posts in this blog.

valium for sale

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

ativan online no prescriptionbuy xanax online buy valium online buy valium online
  • I love Kathy Bates, but this show certainly does seem to have a leftist agenda, based on what you’ve laid out here. Well, it’s NBC, whaddaya expect?

    As for not having a TV in your house, good for you! I generally only watch movies and educational documentaries and shows.

    • The show dialog clearly shows the liberal bias of whoever is in control of the lines they use. They make no attempt to hide it.

      As for the TV, it’s a choice, but I think the right choice for us.

  • Other than the History channel and the Military channel I watch little to no television. But it seems as if when I do I always catch little glimpses of the liberal agenda, it is usually subtle but there. I have not seem this show, but in this case it seems as if there is a blatantly liberal bias being displayed. Not that there is anything wrong with the creator of this show doing it as he sees fit, but it shows us yet another example of the media trying to push a leftist agenda.

    • Exactly, Steve. David E. Kelley has every right to do what he wants with the show, but we have every right to point out what he is doing. Nothing wrong with that, I think.

      • True Larry, there is nothing wrong with what Kelley is doing, but we should reserve the right to call him on it.

  • Hollywood and the MSM are important part of the liberal/progressive team.

    • From what I see from here, I would agree.

  • The left has been doing this kind of crap for years on television. Television shows can be a very powerful way to influence the weak minded or ignorant and both sides know this. In order to not be so easily swayed by this form of propaganda your foundation must be rock solid and you must be informed on the issues. Yes it’s easy to dismiss these shows as fictional entertainment, but the left used television to normalize many issues that at one time in this country was considered out of the norm. It all seems harmless because it is under the pretext as fictional entertainment, but as I stated earlier those who are ignorant can be easily swayed and this one of the areas where the battle for the hearts and minds of individuals is be fought. Great post Larry.

    • I think you are right, John and I would take your thought a little further. I fully believe the liberal entertainment put out by Hollywood is one reason so many young people tend to vote more liberal. It is not as easy for them to separate the truth from the fiction.

      • I agree with both you and John, the media and these fictional shows can be very influential to people who do not follow the issues closely and for this reason alone these shows can be dangerous. Just think about this: people can watch fictional shows who don’t follow politics and form an opinion based on these shows which most times are not based in reality and then head to the polls based on what they “learned” from these shows. The Democrats have capitalized on these efforts and it is scary to think that people are voting based on assumptions that may not be based in reality.

        • That just goes to show you that a lot of people who vote on the left side of the political spectrum, do so for emotion’s sake and not because of the facts.

  • I am not a regular watcher of television either. Mostly because I had other things to do and could not spare the time. Now, on the rare occasion that I do watch, I cannot believe the level of liberal thought being promoted by various programs. Even the History channel is not immune to this. The inescapable conclusion to this situation is that the public is swimming in this thought and most are not even aware of it. I would argue that such thoughts eventually become embedded in the mind with time and that modified behavior follows thereafter. I am certain that the entertainment industry is aware of this effect and designs its shows accordingly. As proof of this, I submit the reaction to Jack Bauer’s torture of prisoners to elicit information on the show 24 and Hollywood’s reaction to it. If there were no impact upon the thoughts of the audience, then why all of the screeching? Thought provoking post sir.

    • Thanks, William. If I can provoke someone to thought, then I have accomplished my goal as a writer.

      I wonder why the liberal mindset is so prevalent in Hollywood? I know there are some actors who are conservative, Adam Baldwin comes to mind, so why are there not more programs that are more conservative in nature?

  • Michael Clements

    I applaud your decision to not have a television in your home. We have a TV that we watch videos and play games on, but we turned off our satellite sub several weeks ago and haven’t missed it a bit. There is no doubt that all forms of the media are powerful in shaping public opinion and influencing behavior. That’s why commercial air time during the Super Bowl is so expensive. I was interviewing a school safety officer one time and he told me, “If you want to know what cloths your kids will be wearing, or what music they will be listening to or what expressions they will be using, just go to the movies and watch their television programs.”

    • Thanks, Michael. There is no doubt that our young people are powerfully swayed by what they see on the television and in the movies. That is one reason why parents should exercise at least some control over what their children watch.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Harry’s Law And The Liberal Agenda | Political Realities --

  • Pingback: Right Wing Extremists: January 29, 2011 | REPUBLICAN REDEFINED()

  • The next modern tv series that isn’t at least tinged with a liberal agenda will probably be the first… The sad thing is, most people don’t even notice…

    • You are probably right and the not noticing is the worst part of it all. So many people pay no attention to what is going on around them.

  • Promoting population control and theft. Sweet! I hope that show fails miserably.

    The first example you gave, about the Drug War, isn’t necessarily leftwing though. People like Thomas Sowell and the late William F. Buckley Jr. (among countless others on the right) are against drug prohibition. The Constitution provides the federal government only 18 enumerated powers, none of which is the power to prohibit what a person ingests. So, based on the violation of the Constitution alone, ending prohibition should be a major goal for the conservative movement.

    • I think I pointed out that legalizing drugs was first a conservative idea.

  • I’ll confess that I love my television but it is generally on the news. David Kelly is extremely Liberal. I have to admit that I was fascinated with LA Law many years ago and the first few seasons of The Practice. I’ve noticed that the more successful the producers become, the more loudly Liberal they become. It’s fine with me. It exposes them for what they are.

    The second scenario you mention Larry, the 89 year old woman – I don’t doubt that we have some of that going on everyday. It probably works if they live in San Francisco.

    I think Kathy Baker will be a hit in anything she appears in.

    During my son’s college years I remember him giving me a DVD of The Motorcycle Diaries. I was horrified although I didn’t let him know. I prayed a lot. Today we laugh about it, and his certainly is not Liberal.

    • They must become very bold as they become more successful. Maybe they feel more empowered to voice their opinions. One thing for sure, Harry’s Law clearly has a liberal slant to it.

  • Pingback: Sunday morning links… | The RIGHT Opinions()

  • Now with Comcast and NBC combining, I doubt our bill o fare will be much improved on Cable. Not missing much myself, a good book is fine with me, as well as the lying weather channel!

  • Mike

    You guys keep saying how smart Americans are and that they don’t need Democrat elitists to explain right from wrong or tell people what is in their own best interests on incredibly complex political issues. And now you’re arguing that those same Americans aren’t smart enough to figure out the idiocy of some tv shows, to not allow themselves to be swayed by tv fantasy like 24 or Harry’s Law, and to shut off the ones they don’t think their kids should watch? Give me a break!

    • I did not argue that the American citizen was not smart enough to tell the difference between a TV show and reality. I was merely trying to point out the obvious liberal slant that the program contains. But no, I do not think the American citizen needs any elitist, be it Democrat or Republican, to tell them what is in their best interest on these complex political issues. Call me naive, but I think we are a lot smarter than what some of them give us credit for.

  • Mike

    Your original story didn’t make the point Larry but the subsequent comments did. Here are a few comments culled from the responses to your story.

    John: “those who are ignorant can be easily swayed .”

    Larry: “I fully believe the liberal entertainment put out by Hollywood is one reason so many young people tend to vote more liberal. It is not as easy for them to separate the truth from the fiction.”

    Steve: “people can watch fictional shows who don’t follow politics and form an opinion based on these shows”

    William: “The inescapable conclusion to this situation is that the public is swimming in this thought and most are not even aware of it”

    Michael: “There is no doubt that all forms of the media are powerful in shaping public opinion and influencing behavior”

    Mark: “The next modern tv series that isn’t at least tinged with a liberal agenda will probably be the first… The sad thing is, most people don’t even notice”

    In each case people are saying the American people are easily swayed by watching tv programs. Well, I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways. If the American people are so dumb as to be swayed by shows like 24 then they obviously can’t be smart enough to understand the detail of health care reform, cap and trade, illegal immigration, budget reconciliation, etc. If they can figure that stuff out for themselves then we don’t need to be chastising entertainers for putting stupid stuff on the air whatever the political slant it may contain.

    • First of all, I was not trying to chastise David E. Kelley for putting out a show that is so obviously biased to the left. I just wanted to point out the fact that the biased existed. I guess I really don’t understand your argument, in that I see nothing wrong with pointing that out.

      As for my comment that liberally biased TV shows is one reason so many young people tend to vote more liberal, I stand by it with no reservations. That doesn’t mean they are incapable of understanding the complex details of things like health care reform and the other things you mention. It does mean that we have an uphill battle to show them the conservative viewpoint, especially when they have been bombarded with the liberal viewpoint since they were in school. Again, that is not to say the American people can not understand these issues, but I feel we have a right and an obligation to make sure they know about the conservative viewpoint and how biased some of these shows are.

  • Carol

    You forgot to mention that the elderly lady only received a small social security check, that she got sick and most of her money went to pay for medication which would have been provided for with the upcoming Medical Health Care that is coming against such opposition in being implemented.
    Three adults in this family, two very political conservatives. All 3 of us saw the previews and looked forward to seeing this show. Didn’t think it would be so liberally biased because Kathy Bates shoots a rat and says ” Alert PETA!” The comedic portions are hilariously funny but it mocks and makes fun of conservatives and paints tem as uncaring about the poor.
    The cast is great and is so well written…I just hate it is so biased. Only one in this household will watch for the comedic value…which is great.

    • Thanks for commenting on Political Realities. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

      I was actually quite shocked at the bias I witnessed on the show. Like I said, I don’t even own a TV, so I was unaware of how biased some of the entertainers really are. David E. Kelley makes no bones about his liberal feelings in Harry’s Law. I failed to mention the full background as to why the elderly lady robbed the store. You are right, in that this seemed like an attempt to paint conservatives as uncaring.

  • I haven’t seen the show yet, but from your description this show seems like it definitely has a liberal slant. But, that has been going for years on T.V. I think David E. Kelley was also the creator of the show “The Practice” and that had a liberal bias as well. Conservative T.V. shows sure do seem to be lacking greatly. We need more shows like “Walker, Texas Ranger” which taught good moral messages for both children and adults. I was trying to think of a conservative leaning show on TV today and am unable to think of even 1. The last one would be “24” but I haven’t seen one since. What a shame!

    • I had heard that Kelley was known for some of his more liberal shows. Harry’s Law seems to be along the same lines.

  • Is that Kathy Bates? Liberals love courtroom dramas because they can endlessly preach about hypotheticals and lecture the audience about things and “rip” their stories from the headlines. I like Law & Order but sometimes the stories are just too biased. This show looks to be the same. A surprisingly Conservative show was Battlestar Galactica and, as I mentioned in a previous article, Firefly.

    • I remember you writing about Firefly. So you thought Battlestar Galactica was conservative? Which version are you talking about?

      • The-make not the campy original. The series was very post 9-11 confronting many of the issues of our time such as detainment, terrorism, civil liberties, and war. Probably the best series I’ve ever seen and very engrossing.