Stock up on the chapstick, Butt kisser.
Why is anyone surprised at these reactions? 81% percent of Americans support the war. Has the SDMB become that much of an ivory tower?
Well, except that Cecil’s answers to the questions were “doubtful” that it was Bush, “yeah, but it wasn’t a big deal back then,” and “not really.”
Also, your search for Clinton should have been more complete, since we’re talking about one-off wisecracks here. The boss dismisses Clinton, Bush, Dole and Perot as not “major.” He refers to Clinton as a noted dope smoker, ascribes to Clinton the sentiment that just because something’s immoral doesn’t mean it should be a crime. and expresses astonishment at Clinton’s re-election.
Hope that helps.
I am not surprised by the disagreement with Cecil’s comment but the quality of that disagreement I do find alarming and dangerous. Many (by no means all) of the people who disagree with Cecil’s column have stated that his exercise of free speech was both unpatriotic and should be excised.
I for one don’t deny Cecil the right to free speech. But one must expect a reaction to what one writes. I think most of the people here don’t think that Cecil shouldn’t express his thoughts, rather they disagree with how he did it and in what format. That’s all.
Crap. There are so many threads on this now that I posted a response intended here elsewhere. Mindful of the rules against cross-posting, I’ll just say that his remark was inappropriate given the very real and immediate nature of war for the friends and family of those who are fighting for their lives. Cecil came across, at least to me (and I oppose the war), as at best insensitive and at worst foolish. He should be free to say whatever the owners of Chicago Reader will allow. And he (and Chicago Reader) should be prepared to take the heat.
Well, if we’re lucky, only one more column.
Sorry … couldn’t help myself …
And, of course, he is. He needs no one’s permission, save The Reader.
Creative_Munster said
Why would it occur to you, or anyone else, that they had the right to deny him his right to free speech?
I wrote that in response to TheMemeWarrior’s post. But I assume you already knew that.
And the one in question wasn’t? It was an unbiased article all the way to three words in the last sentence, which Cecil made obvious was his own personal opinion.
“Political hack piece”? Pssha! There’s a general misconception about Bush’s trip AWOL from the National Guard and people want to know what really happened, Cecil answered the question. I’m so sorry for you Bush really did go AWOL from the National Guard and any mention of it is partisan slander, but that’s what happened.
He might. Nothing’s stopping him.
Hey man, Cecil don’t owe you nothin. Cecil just writes the articles and people choose to read 'em. You’re not his editor, you’re not even paying to read them. If Cecil has a negative view of the war and how it will cause Bush to be judged in the future, he can put it in the very last sentence of his article in three words all he wants but it ain’t gonna change ANYTHING he has with you.
[quote[The column in itself was just a hack piece. An opportunity to bash the president because he could.[/quote]
Get off your Ann Culter trip, man. Bush went AWOL, that’s a fact. Cecil writes a column on it. He includes a few things that, were Clinton a Republican, you probably would have called potshots at Clinton.
So Cecil can’t write factual columns because of how it’ll effect a portion of his audience?
Meh. A reader asked, Cecil answered. Whoopity doo. If I recall Bush didn’t come out of that thing seriously damaged in any way.
What’s your point here? If you’re trying to say Cecil is a bleeding heart liberal because of what he said in that article and he hasn’t written enough Clinton-bashing articles to be ‘satisfactory’ to your tastes, then why don’t you shove it? Cecil’s article on the Superbowl myth of wife abuse included shots at feminists; his article on the ‘right to own guns’ was totally unbiased; his article on the 13th amendment prohibiting the draft you would have liked because it had an apropriate ‘conservative’ answer; there’s the article on Jimmy Carter and the killer rabbit; the one on the 16th amendment violated Cecil’s “contract” with his readers who are against the income tax by your standards; read Cecil’s article on the Long term effects of Marijuana; if you’re a die-hard believer in the Illuminata you shouldn’t read Straight Dope because of the numerous ‘hack pieces’ written about them; his article on UN weapons inspectors did not pan the organization out to a high standard of respectability.
For a real bombshell of a ‘hack piece’ you should read Cecil’s article on the huge stash of porn hidden underneath the Vatican.
Cecil’s written many articles that you could call ‘hack pieces’, but they really weren’t.
There was some ignorance on that subject, a reader wanted to know so Cecil told us Clinton couldn’t. Sheesh.
You’d be surprised. It’s my bet Cecil would side with YOU, you ungrateful jackass, because the Electoral College says Bush won. You’re forgetting that Cecil’s article on Bush’s grandpappy had a conservative, ‘Bush apologist’ tilt to it (if I may semi-quote another Doper in the thread) which he was surely blasted for.
Cecil makes it very clear what’s his opinion and what’s a fact, that’s one of the reasons why he’s so good. He’s written several articles on topics that have had plenty to do with political agendas and has always written them fairly, even if one side came out tarnished. If Cecil made sure not to offend anyone in his articles, there’s no point to writing his articles anymore because the truth wouldn’t be allowed anymore, man.
You call the re-election article on Clinton fluff? Pssha. It was an article Cecil wrote to fight the ignorance that Clinton could get re-elected.
For some ‘partisan trash’, read the occasional Cecil comment in How will stars be arranged on the flag if the U.S. ever has 51 states? They were funny, obviously opionated and non-factual, and added a lot to the article.
“At the Battle of Guilford Court House in North Carolina in 1781, American troops carried a banner with 13 stars in a dweebish arrangement of two rows of four, one row of three, and the remaining two stars shoehorned in one above the other on the far right. Worse, the flag had alternating red-and-blue stripes, with blue eight-pointed stars arranged on a white field. Not surprisingly, the troops obliged to fight under this pathetic rag got massacred. I’d have been too embarrassed even to show up”
HIGH-larious.
One more thing:
Creative_Munster, grow up. Calling people “butt munchers”, and saying we should “stock up on chapstick, butt kisser”, does not rank highly on the sophistication tower. It also does a great disservice so your argument and everyone who shares a similar view. Now get off the playground and go to nap time, will ya.
I think Eutychus hit it on the head when he said
I personally was a little disappointed to read Cecil’s comment (and by the way I read it in the paper, along with all those lovely advertisements, what percentage of folks make the same claim?), but look, it’s in an alternative paper with somewhat left leanings, and that’s just what it is.
If the political comment would’ve been right-leaning, you can bet the install-base would’ve been pretty unhappy.
I have a feeling that if anyone still reads the print edition of The Reader, they will be receiving a few nasty letters regarding this little editorial slight. (Most people I know in Chicago use the paper merely as a reference guide – for clubs, films, etc. – and skip the rather mundane “articles.”)
Certainly Cecil (or, rather, whoever the hell writes the column these days) has a right to express his opinion on the war. Just don’t be “shocked and awed” when people come along and disagree, essentially writing “letters to the Editor” complaining of the “stupid war” comment.
That’s their right, too. Denying it is frankly very hypocritical.
I don’t think anyone is denying anyone’s right to disagree. But the feeling I’m getting is that since Cecil may have this opinion about the war, therefore his factual knowledge about every other subject is suddenly useless. Which to me is utter foolishness and only serves to show me how relentlessly partisan we’ve become.
Eutychus, I apologize. My comment was meant to be a joke. But in retrospect it wasn’t all that funny. Bad taste on my part.
Boy, I guess if really really knew all the opinions the people they looked up to held, they’d go screaming through streets and become a hermit in a cave somewhere.
Get over it folks, sometimes people actually disagree with you, and you can still interact with them or partake of their works and art. How you got to be old enough to use a computer and not understand this is astonishing.
I guess you all just assume that every musician in your record collection and artist in your library holds exactly the same political views you do? Shouldn’t you hurry up and investigate, and make sure you throw out everything from artists who are registered as voters of the opposite party, whatever that may be?
Who I listen to for entertainment doesn’t need to share my political views. I could care less what their political views are. That is the whole point. I don’t want to know their views. I want to listen to their music untainted. I love Pearl Jam, Bought their music. But now? Well, I can’t listen to them for entertainment anymore. Same would go for the Dixie Chicks if I was a fan. I like who I like because I like to be entertained by them, not because of what political view they hold.
I listen to Pearl Jam to escape and not think about the war or Bush or whatever is going on. Now, they have set themselves up as a reminder of what is going on. Another talking head. Thus, no longer entertaining.
I am sure you wouldn’t want to listen to your favorite band if they were on TV harping on which ever side of the abortion debate you may not fall on.
So what i have to say is this to everybody involved in entertainment.
Shut your pie hole and dance for me. I didn’t come to hear you talk, just play the damn music, make the damn movies and write the damn books and be greatful for whatever money I throw your way because if you do anything outside of that, I will take my money elsewhere to some place that understands that you lose fans when you make it political.
Outtie 5000
You mean – US politics of the last ten years or so aren’t the entire universe of political philosophy? Die! vile heretic!
Attention: unlice Uncle Cecil, FIRST I will be a bit snarky, THEN will go for a more thoughtful comment.
The snarky part:
Which means… are you paying attention… here it comes… that YOU DO CARE what their political views are.
Since I really don’t care about my favorite artists’ positions on the issue, I don’t care what the heck they say. I continue enjoying the music (or the art, or the writing). Short of coming out for Nazism or Stalinism, what do I care?
Please inform us the exact amount of money you throw Cecil Adams’ way.
The more thoughtful part:
I am completely in favor of the public voting with their feet and pocketbooks on questions of whether an entertainer, author or pundit has pissed them off. Nothing delivers the message that you’re doing something wrong better than a downturn in sales.
HOWEVER…
As long as the entertainer/artist/pundit/professor is aware of what is the cost of pissing off an audience member, and is willing to take the consequences like a big boy/gal, why in the world would it be claimed that s/he has some sort of moral obligation to shut up and NOT express controversial opinions? Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to Pearl Jam or the Dixie Chicks or for that matter Lee Greenwood. If they want to piss off their audience, it’s their problem, let them deal with it.
One would think that by the year of Our Lord 2003, people would be used to having their entertainers/writers come up with comments and behaviors that we may find ignorant, annoying, scandalous, immoral or even criminal. Does it affect your enjoyment of a performer or author if you learn s/he does dope? is gay? atheist? commits suicide? Should that mean that they are under a moral obligation to not be that way/do that, or just to never let that be known by the public?
(And never mind that for some acts, like U2
That last post, Maddamish, makes it sound like you are angry that learning about a performer’s politics ruined your enjoyment of their art, and feel that they wronged you. Well, that’s regrettable, I am sorry about it. You do what has to be done, and stop spending money on them. And do that for whoever else violates your “no politics” rule.