Buh bye Cecil

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
41

:mad: (*&^%$#@ board hamsters made this thing post before I was done with it!!!:mad: :mad:

Attention: unlike 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, political activism IS PART OF THE PACKAGE)

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 on whoever else violates your “no politics” rule, and make it be known you’ll seek to convinve others of that. You wan to unilaterally decree the existence of some sort of moral contract? Much luck getting it recognized.

42

Including Cecil, right? He came down pretty squarely (and tactlessly) on one side.

43

I know Pearl Jam fans. Pearl Jam fans are good friends of mine. And you are no Pearl Jam fan.

Love their music? Ha!

If you had bothered to listen to their music, specifically their newest album (Riot Act, released last November), you would’ve found some very harsh anti-Bush political commentary.

If you’re truly surprised and upset by Pearl Jam having political views you dislike (they supported Ralph Nader for president, for chrissakes!), then you’ve had your head in the sand.

44

I think we have crossed the plain to somewhere different. If a commentator expresses an opinion that we not only disagree with, but find unacceptably partisan, then we might wish to withdraw our support. In the case of musicians and other artists, there is more going on than just the message; there’s the beat, the mix, the other songs (which may be about topics that we do agree on or have no view one way or another).

I’ll give you a f’rinstance. For years I loved The Stranglers. I was aware they were politically incorrect from the get-go (before the term ‘politically incorrect’ was invented in fact) but I loved the bass sound, the way the instruments came in at the start of each song, the bad boy surliness that lent to the power of the sound and the overall package. So I found that combination of attributes overshadowed the views that I actively disagreed with. Others may call up in a ball over the first mistep in sentiment and I guess that’s their prerogative but it was never an issue to me. And it still isn’t.

45

I have every cd up to Yield. I have gone to three concerts and have a PJ poster on my wall. Didn’t get the last couple of new Cd’s becuase of always wanting to buy something else when I am at the store. I have tickets to their concert when they come up here pretty soon. I am debating on going now. I most likely won’t. Now if Weezer can keep their mouth shut. laugh

As far a throwing money Cecil’s way, I was first exposed to Cecil when he had that great television show . I was pretty sad that it had been canceled. I was overjoyed to see that he had a couple of books and this great website. I have since gave the books away just so that others may know how great his stuff is.

That being said, I am not saying i am leaving this website over two sentances. I am just expressing my opinion that I see an alarming trend here and hope Cecil is wary about mixing his webstie and politics.

46

No “alarming thread”, Maddamish. Entertainers/authors, yes even highly talented and otherwise respected ones, have been doing that almost forever, and Cecil has been doing it for most of the 30 years of the column – in other threads about this issue, examples have been pointed out.

47

Well, Lib, I’m sure you undertand the difference between stupid partisanship and realistic partisanship. If Cecil had the time to dedicate to this board, I’m sure he would offer you reasonable and thoughtful debate as to why he feels the way he does and maybe there would be a bit of understanding on both sides. Not agreement, but understanding. Stupid partisanship says “I disagree with you on this one subject and herefore anything you have to say on any subject is invalid.” Which is what I’m seeing a lot of here and which to my mind is idiotic.

48

Newspaper columns are, by their very nature, generally opinion pieces, even the ones that spend most of their time answering general questions. Everything Cecil does reflects his opinion. If he states a generally accepted scientific fact, he is silently expressing the opinion that the people putting it forth are trustworthy. If he states the results of his own personal observations (my favorite was the classic relating to staying dryer by running through the rain), he is stating, in effect, “I believe my senses are not lying to me.”

I have read SD for over a decade, and have seen many questions where there was insufficient factual evidence, and Cecil put forth his opinion as to what source was the most reliable. In the end, he is always saying “This, in my opinion, is the most correct answer to your question.”

When Cecil published his opinion that the current manned space program should be canned, I thought his opinion was misinformed and short-sighted, and posted as much on this board. I don’t think I convinced him, but I respect the integrity with which he provides a forum for the exchange of ideas.

Whose name is on this board and the columns? The very idea that it should tailor to anyone’s desires but Cecil’s (and the Reader’s, who pay to make the site accessible because their opinion is that Cecil helps sell papers) is ridiculous.

The idea that anyone’s job is to treat themselves as less of a person for the sake of entertaining you should have gone out with King George III. I listen to whom I want, and when I don’t want to listen to them anymore, I stop. I certainly don’t claim they don’t have the right to put what they want on their own columns.

You’ve admitted that your opinion is that, if Cecil wants to keep you as a fan, he should lay off politics. I don’t see him coming in here and telling you you have no business saying that.

49

Have any of you felt that you are all basically saying the same things in a different way, and from different perspectives? lol.

To recap: The right of free speech gives anyone (even me :)) the right to say what they want. Cecil, the Dixie Chicks, whoever, has the right to say whatever s/he/they/it wants too. Other people have the right to disagree, and as he (Cecil) has so generously provided this forum, they too can express their opinion for or against what he said (as well as a lot of peripherial other things we won’t get into). If you feel strongly enough about what the artist, author, or whatever has said/done then you as a consumer certainly have the right to take your money elsewhere. Some folks are feeling pretty froggy (lol) about the French atm and are boycotting french products (and some dippy people even french fries…what a country). Its their right as consumers. (Personally I’m more upset by the defacement of the gravestones of our war dead still in France than their position about the war but…) No one is suggesting the GOVERNMENT should step in to silence people on these issues, or to boycott the French for that matter.

Artists, singers, politicians, authors can use their fame and access to a larger public forum than can the average Joe Sixpack out there (or myself for that matter, though I’m a Guiness drinker :)). They have the right to use that forum as they choose, within limits we set on ourselves. If they use that forum to express their own political, moral, or ethical agendas, then they will, no matter what the issue, alienate SOME portion of their audiance. As they are adults, its a risk that they take knowingly and shouldn’t be surprised when they end up losing some portion of said audiance. This isn’t a violation of their free speech…its market forces in action in our country.

To be honest, to me this whole thing is a tempest in a tea cup though as far as Cecil’s article goes…it was only a few lines at the end of an column. It wasn’t exactly a full blown position, just something snappy like Cecil usually puts at the beginning or end of his stuff. I think if he retracted what he said, it would be a serious blow to freedom of speech. While I personally don’t agree with what I THINK he was saying, it doesn’t change my opinion of him or his column one bit. To me, its in character with all the things I’ve read by him throughout the years.

-XT

50

Has anyone considered that this IS (or was) a fool war?

I just hear people yap yap yappin’ about how Cecil, The Dixie Chicks, etc. are such bad people for declaring such things.

Why? We don’t have a right to question, and downright disagree with, what our President decides to do?
My thought has always been this is a war being fought for the wrong reasons, but I always hoped for the best end result of it. To explain:
[List=1]
[li]Saddam is a bad bad man. No doubt.[/li][li]His people deserve freedom and joy.[/li][li]This “war” (Which I’ve heard described as Mike Tyson fighting a Club Boxer) will hopefully lead to this.[/li][/List=1]

BUT

[List=1]
[li]Bush and his cohorts did it for oil, same as his daddy.[/li][/List=1]

There are other places in the world who far worse on the degrading on human life. And there are far more dangerous places amassing weapons of mass destruction.

Yet Bush chose Iraq.

Damn Fool War? yes. But the hopeful end results will be worth it.

And I fully supported and prayed for every single troop putting his and her life on the line.

You can, ethicly, oppose the war and support the troops.

… Just don’t lump the CIC with the troops.

51

I’ve just learned that William Shakespeare was a rabid monarchist. What did we fight the revolution for anyway? Our founding fathers fought and died against this sort of totalitarian repression. I’m sickened by his traitorous political tirades and I’m no longer going to read or quote anything written by the Black Beast of Avon.

52

Cecil sure overestimated his audience, didn’t he? He should have realized that a lot of the Teeming Millions simply aren’t mature or intelligent enough to handle others having opposing opinions, and realizing that it matters little in the enjoyment of his works. It’s sad, but obviously true.

53

You know what this brouhaha reminds me of? Attending college at the height of political correctness. Only then it was the folks who ran around mouthing off about how whites had “stolen” their culture from Africa and feminists who were of the opnion that men had no right to contradict them because to do so was verbal rape and gays who thought that unless you admitted that you wanted it in the butt yourself that you were automatically a homophobe who all got together and decided that you had no right to your opinion.

Ten years ago the greatest threat to freedom in this country was from the left. Today it’s from the right.

And always they hide behind some kind of “sacred” bullshit to justify shouting down opinions they don’t like.

Of course that’s what makes letting them know you think they’re idiots and then watching them hyperventilate so much fun.

In any case, I hope that’s what left of the Iraqi hierarchy reads this because there’s always the chance it might give them the very encouragement they need to go on.

54

Sorry, Frumpy, I’m not buying it. You’ll have to do a lot better than that to convince me Bush’s motivation is just to get oil.

I’ll accept that Bush’s motivations aren’t strictly to liberate the Iraqi people. I can be convinced that the true motivations don’t have anything to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction or Terrorism ties. Call it the “response to 9/11” excuse (which I heard Chris Matthews from Hardball expressing tonight on The Tonight Show). But the oil argument will take a lot of evidence.

Will we get oil out of it? Absolutely. It’s been stated right up front that oil is a resource the Iraqis have, and will be how the Iraqis can pay for the expense and resources sent in to rebuild the country. So you’re going to have to come up with more to prove oil was the only motivation, or the primary motivation.

But it should probably be in another thread, in GD.

braintree said:

Oh please. :rolleyes:

Hey folks, protesting the government’s actions is the American thing to do, going all the way back to the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence, and the structuring of the Constitution with a Bill of Rights specifically to limit the government.

55

Which misses the point completely.

If Cecil had written a statement of support for the war, a different set of people would have objected, but for the same reason.

It was an opinion. Not a fact, not anything verifiable, nothing that can be established beyond a reasonable doubt. An opinion - but placed at the end of what was and is supposed to be a column of facts.

If it had been a post in General Questions, a mod would have yanked it off to Great Debates faster than you can say “Partisan Prattle”.

And the only response we will ever get is the one we get whenever someone, rightly or wrongly, complains about inconsistent application of the alleged rules.

“It’s our messageboard, and we can do whatever we want.”

Including, in this case, presentation of an opinion as if it were fact.

Shameful. And directly contradictory to the mission of the SDMB.

Regards,
Shodan

56

Hmmm… Ya want some proof? Here’s some for ya:

Have you noticed how Dick Cheney has become the quietest Vice President EVER? There’s a good reason for that…

Mr. Cheney’s [old] company, Halliburton was the main company responsible for helping rebuild the oil fields (at a profit) from Daddy Bush’s Iraq war. The profit from that is still being made. And if Iraq were LIBERATED, who do you think will get first crack at owning a part, or helping to develop, those new, FREE, Iraq oil fields?

Consider also, When Cheney decided to leave Halliburton to run for Veep, he was given over 30 MILLION in compensation by Halliburton. And, what did that BUY Halliburton…

Well, as it turns out, an offshoot of Halliburton, KELLOG, BROWN, & ROOT have gotten the bid on a government contract that was never put up for competition. The bid is a 7 Billion dollar contract to help stop the Oil fires from this war. The contract allows KB&R to make a 7% profit on the deal (Which can total up to 490 million dollars). There is no indication how much of the contract will be paid out if (Or, as it turns out, SINCE) there are not any major oil field fires to put out.

Let us also take into account that since 9/11, KB&R has been given various government bids, such as building the cells at Guantanamo bay, and they are the exclusive logistic supplier for the army and navy. That contract provides for cooking, construction, power generation and fuel transportation.

It seems that Halliburton and KB&R do not have any of their hands in North Korea.

Finally, Mr. Cheney held a conference, on the taxpayer’s dollar, with some oil Business people. The discussions, and the actual participants, have been kept hush-hush. Anyone who has tried to inquire into this conference, has found themselves handed a lawsuit FROM THE GOVERNMENT (I.E. or tax dollars) to stop them from looking into that matter further.

So, would you like MORE evidence?

57

Irishman might also want to do a quick internet search for “The Cheney Report,” Dick Cheney’s 2001 (pre-9/11, even) White House energy paper where he strongly recommends that the United States “secure” a foreign source of oil, in anticipation of projected rising demand from the United States.

And before anyone asks, “If the U.S. wanted oil, why not just buy it from Saddam?”, the Cheney Report nixes that as a viable option, because then it would place the U.S. at the mercy of “unfriendly” nations. Having the oil isn’t enough; the United States must own it.

And you can now bet your bottom dollar they will, through the American petroleum companies lining up to get into Iraq…

58

Well, if it were an admin or someone else posting it, I’d tend to agree with you…

But it was UNCA CECIL. And it wasn’t put ‘on the web’ it was his newspaper column.

And, IMHO, the man can do whatever the hell he wants. It’s his baby.

59

Any chance you could be more specific? Who tried to inquire and was sued by the government? I missed it. Name names.

60

good point. I should nail down some names and facts on that last part…

Ignore the last bit till I get more solid notes on it.