You’re correct. The cancellation of the festival was the direct consequence of HoF Prez’s decision. I should have said "rational or not, the HoF Prez’s decision to cancel the festival is a direct consequence of Tim and Susan’s protests. "
Which shouldn’t have surprised the couple.
As political as they are, they weren’t aware of who was organizing a festival in which they would be featured?
A simple “I’m sorry our disagreement on politics has influenced your decision, but we stand by our principles” would have been classier. Considering how important they it is to them, they would have held the “moral high ground”. Instead, they decided to respond with more political hacks.
I’d say Robbins is spot-on in his criticism of Petroskey, and more, well within his rights and his nature to respond in this way. Particularly Petroskey’s use of words like “patriotism” and “freedom,” and the comment about baseball being a “Republican sport.” Good on Robbins for responding in this fashion.
Further, I find it funny that Petroskey would say this:
…when he is engaging in the same sort of public display that he criticizes Robbins and Sarandon for. I guess he thinks he’s being more “responsible” in his actions. :rolleyes:
I don’t know why everyone has to get their knickers in a twist when actors state their beliefs. THEY’RE AMERICANS! We all have the right. I’m sure little old you-and-me would state our opinions if we had the chance to do it in a larger forum. The fact that they are actors does not make them less of a citizen. Bravo to Tim and Susan!
Maybe we should pass a law that anyone who’s famous for any other reason than politics, has no right to use their celebrity as a platform for voicing political views, running for office, etc. Let’s gag the Hollywood celebs, the sports stars, the business bigwigs, the rock stars - shut 'em all up.
oceans_11:
Why should it not have surprised them? What did they say that was so over the line?
Maybe they weren’t thinking of this event in terms of politics, until Petroskey got his patriotic panties in a wad.
It would have been. But after two years of watching the Dems roll over and play dead, it’s refreshing to see one come out swinging for once.
If a celebrity wants to use that status as a pulpit from which to bully the public, then said celebrity deserves whatever legal consequences exist for so doing.
Tell me, do you think daring to disagree with Timmiepoo and Susiepoo should be punished by lifelong imprisonment or execution?
I see Tim and Susan as being in the same position as a couple of high school kids who protested somethingorother (doesn’t matter what, but you know the kind of thing I’m talking about) and then found to their dismay that they were being banned from the Prom because of it. That wasn’t fair, and neither is this.
And may I say that IMO Zev’s “minor nitpick” was not a “minor” nitpick at all, but in fact a particularly pertinent one. From the OP:
In fact, MLB has decided no such thing. The Baseball Hall of Fame, a completely separate and independent non-profit organization, has decided that Tim and Susan are interfering with their self-appointed educational and cultural significance mandate. Bad example for the little nippers and all that.
MLB, being about things like Entertainment, and Sport, and having no Culturally Significant or Educational axes to grind, probably couldn’t care less what a couple of Hollywood actors who once made a baseball movie think about Iraq.
Now here’s a minor nitpick: I object to the use of the smarmy and judgmental term “pseudo-wife”. What’s up with that, eh? Can’t call her “partner” like the article, or “girlfriend”? “SO”?
The Powers That Be are running scared. It always worked before, always. Start banging the drum, start bloviating about supporting our troops while dabbing your eye with a redwhitenblue hanky…bango! dissent drops off the map, the opposition falls apart trying to not be unpatriotic. Patriotism isn’t the last refuge of a scoundrel, its usually the first.
We are a very emotional people, we Americans. We want to be patriotic. We dont much like unpopular opinions anyway, but if they happen to be unpatriotic as well…
This time, it didn’t work quite as well. It worked, but not like it has in the past. In the past all that was left was a hard core minority to protest, and they could be sneered at with a couple of old Bob Hope jokes about haircuts and jobs. But not this time. This time a major protest movement was afoot before the war even got started. And that may be the only hopeful spark out of all of this, the cherry on the turd sundae.
Crapping of Tim and Susan is just more of the same tired old routine. Our enemies grow older, and haven’t got any smarter. The future is ours.
Wait, so Robbins and Sarandon can expect criticism for making political statements, but Petrowsky can make a political statement (cancelling the festival because of Sarandon and Robbins) and not be criticized?
Not to get this thread off the topic of Robbins and Sarandon, but, yes… the HoF defines its own rules. Until 1992, there was no rule that said that Jackson couldn’t be elected. However, no Veteran’s Committee member ever voted for him.
If the Hall wanted to enshrine them tomorrow, there isn’t a thing that MLB could do about it.
Fair? FAIR! Are you crazy? This is absolutely fair, in every sense of the word. Contrary to public opinion, the First Amendment protects speech from government restriction, period. I’m sure you know that, too.
If Timmie and Susie want to partake of public discourse, they can jolly well accept that those private individuals and organizations with differing viewpoints will always have the right to decide whether to support them, implicitly or explicitly, by offering platforms for the psuedo-spouses.
It’s the free market, baby. Vote with your pocketbook.
‘Constitutional’ is the term you’re looking for. You’re saying it’s constitutional for the HoF to respond to Robbins’ and Sarandon’s speech in whatever manner they want, since the First Amendment only guards against government restriction of speech, as you’ve correctly pointed out.
However, ‘fair’ is a term that applies to governmental and private actions alike. Whether it applies here or not, I’ll not judge. But it can’t be said not to apply, simply because the HoF is a private entity.
No, it isn’t fair, because the three things aren’t connected at all. A movie about baseball that they made 15 years ago, a party to celebrate the 15th anniversary of that movie, and politics. The movie wasn’t about politics. The party wasn’t going to be about politics. The National Baseball Hall of Fame has nothing to do with politics. The whole thing was all about baseball, not politics. Politics didn’t have a single friggin’ thing to do with any of it–until Dan Petrowsky decided that politics ought to have something to do with it. Dan Petrowsky is imposing his personal political agenda on something that was completely politics-free.
That’s why it’s not fair. It’s not fair the same way it’s not fair that when students protest, they’re sometimes banned from the prom.
Protesting something and attending the prom are two completely unrelated things. The idea is supposed to be “make the punishment fit the crime”. To punish her, she should have been banned from all future talent shows, not proms.
Or how about this?
His opinion of his art teacher had nothing to do with playing volleyball. And Tim and Susan’s opinions had nothing to do with a movie about baseball.
