Hypocrite poltically correct republicans!

The BBQ Pit
1

So the president of the baseball Hall of Fame cancelled an event at which Tim Robbins was going to speak.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030410/film_nm/iraq_robbins_dc_2

Because of his anti-war views. And the HoF President was an aide to President Reagan.

WTF??

Aren’t these the same conservative shitheads who whine about how some unspoken PC standard scares people into not speaking their minds?

Well, at least they’re being up front about it.

At least there’s one republican who understands what it’s all about:

2

Is there a point?

3

I don’t see why any person in charge of a private organization has any responsibility to host people who disagree with him.

4

All I know about this is from the linked article but apparently Robbins and Sarandon had abused their position as presenters before and it looked like they very well might again, considering their very vocal recent comments to the press.

I’m not sure if Petrosky was motivated to quell anti-administration dissent or just wanted to keep the focus during the tribute to baseball.

5

Kevin Costner is missing the big picture… The freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from criticism or disagreement. If you are going to shoot your mouth off about something you shouldn’t act all suprised when someone you’ve offended reacts.

6

Of course, in Toby’s case the issue is completely different. A private organization, in asking a performer to participate in their venue requested that he not perform a certain song, due to it’s political nature, and he decided to not participate. He of course has been ‘vindicated’.

If one feels that Sarandon, Robbins and Dixie Chick ‘shouldn’t be surprised’ or bothered when their political views have a negative impact on their professional careers, then why should Mr. Keith have been surprised/bothered when he was asked to perform, just not that particular piece? Why would he talk about ‘vindication’ when the songs won popularity contests?

7

I have little use for Susan Sarandon or Tim Robbins off-screen, but “Bull Durham” is one of my favorite movies, and it would have been nice to see a tribute to the movie at the Hall of Fame.

If I’d been in Petroskey’s shoes, I probably would have asked Susan and Tim to avoid political rants at what’s supposed to be a fun, non-partisan event. If they’d agreed to that (and I’m sure they would have- Robbins has said he was looking forward to a chance to do something frivolous and get AWAY from political and war talk, for a change), I’d have said “on with the show.”

In this case, Petroskey is the one who injected politics where it didn’t belong.

8

First of all, the “Toby Case” was not a request, but a flat out rejection. I don’t see any significant difference in the two private entities expressing their right to allow what they want in their venues.

As far as the “vindication” goes;

Have you read any of the posts above yours? The private organizations declaired that they7 believed those opinions are not appropriate, and should not, and probably would not want to be heard. In his specific case with ABC, they stated that his lyrics was too angry and not appropriate. (Wich is their right BTW, and I did not see anywhere where Toby is sueing). He says that those specific lyrics won him 3 awards. Maybe his vindication is the salve from the awards because of the rejection he may have felt from ABC, and deffinately others.

He most likely was surprised/bothered, but the awards made him feel better. Or, in other words, he feels vindicated. Do you hold it against him?

9

Yeah, on the top of the OP’s head.

The OP is apparently one of those people who think that everyone’s required to give his pet causes a platform and someone should choose to NOT do so, scream censorship.

The fun part, of course, will be to watch him drown in his own bile.

Judging from the flecks of spittle all over the OP, that time is not too far off! :eek:

The Toby Keith thing seems an attempt to distract from the issue at hand, since while the occasional Republican may have shrieked “censorship”, I don’t remember a national outcry of the same proportions that, say The Dixie Chicks got or that this Sarandon thing is getting.

Anyway, I’ll state straight out that after reading the article, I thought the Country Music Award’s position on that song was stupid, I also thought them COMPLETELY within their rights to choose to not give him a platform.

How 'bout you? Do you think as the moron who wrote the OP seems to, that freedom of speech means that ANYONE is required to spend their own time and money to give a platform to people they disagree with? I don’t.

On Preview: Astorian, that assumes you believe them. I don’t and apparently neither did Petroskey, especially since, once they’re on-stage, there’s not a whole lot you can do to force them to keep on topic. Given that Sarandon and Robbins are known for spewing politics where politics aren’t welcome.

Fenris

10

Fenris:

I'm inclined to believe them, actually. At the Academy Awards, where I'd have EXPECTED Susan Sarandon to make some kind of political statement, she did nothing more controversial than flash a two-fingered peace sign. And frankly, I have a hard time getting outraged over that.

If that's as political as she got in a setting where she was surrounded by fellow left-wingers, I strongly doubt that she'd have gotten more political at the Baseball Hall of Fame.

“Bull Durham” was a fun movie, one in which VERY different people with VERY different views on virtually everything learn to love each other (without backing down a bit). I think I could have celebrated that movie with Sarandon and Robbins for one afternoon (we could always go back to hating each other afterward!).

11

The issue re: Toby AFAIAC, is that :

in each case you have a celebrity who has had some action taken towards them based on their political view. In the case of Sarandon, Robbins, Dixie et al, those actions consisted of: invitations withdrawn by the proffers of the events, calls for boycotts of their works etc. In the case of Toby, he was asked to perform at a function, but requested specifically to avoid one piece. He chose to withdraw.

So, the actions taken against the folks who were against the war were quite a bit stronger than those against Keith. (Sarandon, Robbins for example managed to get through the Oscars w/o much controversy, unless flashing the peace sign is controversial).

The reaction to the actions taken against these folks (all of em) were (from what I saw): quite a bit of “well, sure you should have expected a reaction to your anti war view, and folks have a right to express their views that your views stink” sort of thing. re the anti war stance, and the only mention I saw of the Keith thing was his ‘vindication’ cry at this award.

Keith’s reaction was to refuse to participate if he wasn’t allowed to express his views (note, Dixie, Sarandon, Robbins did not do this); and later on, when his song won some popularity contest shout to the world (via the podium at this award ceremony) that he’s been vindicated (I suspect that he’s suggesting that winning the awards meant that he shouldn’t have been prevented from playing his piece).

I just find it interesting that the pro-war view had a mild action taken against it, and yet the celebrity acted as if it’d been some substantial bit. And, of course, I recall the threads about, what was it, the Oscars or whatever, where all of the celebs were asked to hold off on their political views for the ceremony.

Seems to me that the same voices that were suggesting that the celebs should accept the consequences of their views w/o complaint (not that I’m disagreeing w/that), are also quite silent WRT : Keith’s reaction to his situation.

I see absolutely no ethical difference between Keith not getting to play his tune, and Sarandon et al being disinvited etc. I see a dramatic difference in level with the pro-war stance getting a mild level of consequence, and the anti war getting a much stronger (and potentially financially devestating) response.

and I’m wondering why those who whine about Sarandon et al, don’t include Keith in their rants.

12

Gee, that sounds a lot like you’re wishing death on me. Thanks!

Be careful not to attribute to me everything said by anyone I cite.

I believe private individuals and institutions have evry right to censor the views promulgated from their stages. But whether they SHOULD do it or not is a different issue entirely.

Baseball belongs to all of us, and I would like for the HoF to be non-partisan. That might mean that the HoF would request presenters to avoid politics, which would be fine with me. But it stinks to heaven that this guy would presumably allow any pro-war ignoramus to shout “we’re #1!” from baseball’s podium and not someone who gives a peace sign. The HoF is (or should be) a different place than the Economic Club of Chicago.

And, fenris, I’d say the froth is a lot closer to your lips than mine. Drown in my bile indeed.

13

Where has Keith stated that his treatment from ABC was somehow “unconstiutional”, undemocratic", or plain “unfair”? I will admit that your post is the first I have heard of it, And i am sure that if hundreds of CW fans decided to run over his cd’s with a tractor because they dissagreed with his views, it may have made it more newsworthy. But you forget in your whing, that no one is saying ABC had no right or cause to do what it did. The frggin people in this thread are insinuating that the HoF had no right or cause to take actioan against Sarandon and co. I state openly that kieth should not be surprised if those that disagree with him REJECT (again I have to point out to you that there was no request no matter how light you want to make it out) his views, then action may be taken against him. And his fans have every right to boycott him if they disagree with what he say.

You seem to now want us to start degrading people who don’t disagree with Toby Keith? Where do you get your left wing logic from? Whings-R-Us?

You want it both ways eh?

14

**
Then follow Board policy and report me to the mods.

I’m getting sick of this bullshit and I’m calling your bluff. I’m tired of the “Wahh! I don’t like what you said, so I’m gonna say that you violated the rules to try to undermine your point” bullshit. This is the second time I’ve seen it in as many weeks and I think it’s time to nip this trend in the bud.

If we get a ruling that says I did violate the rules with that statment, you’ll get an honest, sincere apology from me for that statement. Say what you want about my politics, I’ve always tried to follow the SDMB rules to the spirit AND the letter.

However, I’d be willing to bet they’ll realize that “drown in your own bile”, being A) a well-known expression and B) a physical impossiblity is no more wishing death on you than saying “Your head is so far up your ass, you’ll suffocate.”

If you won’t report me, then I’ll expect a retraction of the implication that I in any way violated the rules or I’ll take it to the admins and report you for trying to intimidate people by pretending that they’ve violated the rules.

Either you think I broke the rules or not. If so, report me. If not, retract.

Fenris

15

Heh. Now that is silly. Eminem has won more awords than that for his lyrics, and it’s not like anyone is going to allow him to sing “Kim” at a halftime show.

16

No, that’s what you are inferring. And I contend that you are misreading. What people have said is that the decision was stupid, needlessly partisan and somewhat hypocritical.

17

I concur. As President of a private organization, Dale Petroskey certainly can cancel an event honoring the movie Bull Durham because he thinks the opinions of Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon on the second Gulf War are anti-American. Likewise, Hootie Johnson can bar women from joining Augusta National and the Boy Scouts can ban gays and atheists. However, that doesn’t mean that Petroskey–along with Augusta National and the Boy Scouts–should do these things. It also doesn’t mean that I can’t express my own opinion that Petroskey’s actions are petty, narrow-minded, vindictive and are less an attempt to squelch any potentially “uncomfortable” moments from occurring at the event than a ripe opportunity for right-wing Republicans like him to bash their favorite Hollywood leftist whipping boy and girl. (That oughta teach 'em for opposing the war!)

18

Thank you.

Also, if the HoF has a board of trustees, I hope they will dismiss the bastard for turning it into a political foot ball in his own right.

Fenris: Fuck off. You don’t make the rules around here. Demand a retraction or a report until you’re blue in the face. A report is between me and the mods (unless a mod calls you on it) and a retraction is between me and you. You ain’t getting a retraction from me. What are you, some kind of playground bully, daring me to tell the teacher you broke a rule? Grow up.

19

nogginhead, you’re… well… a nogginhead.

If you say that Fenris’s post broke the rules, and you don’t report it, and respond as above, a neutral reader, such as myself, is likely to draw the conclusion that you lack a good-faith belief in what you said.

I didn’t get the sense that “drown in your own bile” was any kind of a wish of death.

Sorry.

20

I believe it as much as Fenris meant I should die. (That’s why I said it alound in a sarcastic way.) You seem to think he lacks a good-faith belief in what he said… does that bug you?

If someone throws shit at you, you’ve got every right to throw it back. If they don’t like your style, and whine at you as Fenris did above, they deserve a response like the one I gave him.

And, I never said he broke the rules.

Finally, when someone calls me a moron, implies I’m rabid, and misattributes thoughts to me, I kind of stop worrying about what an impartial observer might think, if such a thing could still exist at that point.