DuckDuck, better get used to the idea that life is not fair. Certain actions have consequences whether they are fair or not. For example, lots of schools have a policy that if you have outstanding library fines, you can’t get your diploma or final grades. You still earned it, but you have to pay the fines first.
In some places, certain actions that have nothing to do with driving (failing to pay child support, for instance) can get your driver’s license revoked.
Stuff happens.
[hijack]
mrsmith537 said
Because I spend entirely too much time looking up urban legends, I found out the other day that Dennis Miller didn’t in fact say that. Go here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/miller.php
I don’t know what Dennis Miller’s politics are, but he might agree, he might not. By the way, if you poke around that site some, you might want to avoid the maggot picture. Ick.
[/hijack]
Rush Limbaugh is a celebrity?
Interesting. I tend to agree with you that politics shouldn’t have anything to do with a non-political event of this kind.
Too bad Susan and Tim disagree. After all, the Academy Awards and similar awards shows are also non-political, and both are known for injecting their political opinions into such shows.
If I were the organizer of this event, I’d have a well-founded worry that any speech or other participation by this couple would include some sort of political comment or message.
No, no… you remember what Al Franken (a celebrity) said about Limbaugh? Yeah, that’s pretty much it.
It seems that Robbins isn’t the one who made this spat public; that honor goes to Petroskey and the HoF (link):
So there you have it. Petroskey didn’t just quietly close down this event, only to have Robbins make a public issue of it. Petroskey was the one who felt it necessary to take Robbins and Sarandon publicly to task. Robbins merely responded in kind.
Interesting. I am torn.
I don’t follow Robbins’ and Sarandon’s views, but I enjoy their work. And I loved Bull Durham. If I were putting on the event, I might fear that someone would use it to espouse their views and taint it. But Petrowsky did that very thing. He turned it into a political statement. And he made it a personal attack.
Maybe they could have quietly come to an agreement. “Let’s have this celebration of the film, and of baseball, and lets leave politics out of it”.
But this:
is ridiculous on it’s face.
This argument is so poorly thought out that I am going to give you a chance to retract it befoe I begin making fun of it.
Then again, why wait?
The “stuff” that always seems to be unfair and happening is when people in power abuse their authority to punish those who challenge them or their ideas. But we’re just supposed to put up with it. Come on, admit it, the total semantic content of your post is, “Bend over.” A great and inspiring message if you’re into that sort of thing, I suppose.
Agree with your first point and your subsequent suggestion.
But while I don’t think the “It’ll harm our troops” claim is a sufficient argument for stifling dissent, I disagree that the claim is ridiculous on its face.
It’s fairly clear that the Arab world viewed the U.S. as a paper tiger, in that it supposedly didn’t have the political will to tolerate an extended war. Stated another way, if Iraq could hold out for a few months and inflict heavy casualties, dissent at home would force a withdrawal. The actions of Robbins, Sarandon and others like them add support to this theory, which arguably heartens Iraqi fighters and makes them more likely to fight on. Again, though, I don’t think this is enough of a reason to prevent someone from expressing his or her views.
Maybe Iraqi fighters see the dissent of people like Robbins and the rest of the anti-war camp and are inspired to fight harder. But on the other hand, maybe ordinary Iraqi people see the same thing and are inspired to embrace the democratic principles of America which allow those who disagree with the government to speak freely without fear of public execution. You never know…
They were pretty well on “good behavior” at the Oscars.
At bottom, yes. He’s a celebrity and nothing more. After all, what qualifications did he have to start spouting off political opinions? He’s certainly no more qualified to do so than Susan Sarandon or Tim Robbins, and they are every bit as entitled as he to use the air time they receive to offer their opinions.
Limbaugh is an political commentator. Like his politics or not. he is famous for simply GIVING his political opinion. It is his full time job.
I’d really even put Al Franken in that role as well. Though he is primarily an entertainer, he has spent a large portion of his time in recent years writing political commentary or satire.
Bono is very dedicated. Mike Farrell also has a strong dedication. Hell, Heston dedicated ALL of his time to his one cause. I can dig these people, regardless of my view of their position. They put ALL their energy into the thing.
It is the “weekened warrior” celeb that comes off as phony in my view; whether “Babs” or “Au-nuld”, it seems so uninformed or condescending.
On the matter of Bull Durham, courtesy of the “Reliable Source”:
Had to look for a minute to see if we are in The Pit. Nope.
You have completely misunderstood my point. I was writing about the concept of "fair"ness.
Just trying to say that people have to be prepared to take the consequences of their actions, that’s all. Sometimes the consequences seem related, sometimes they don’t. In the examples I gave, what does child support have to do with driving? Nothing. Fair? Maybe not. It’s the law all the same.
What does a movie about baseball have to do with politics? Nothing. So? Kevin Costner loses some bucks because the actors in that movie said some things that were unpopular with a particular group that decided not to have an event of some sort related to the movie. Fair? Maybe not. So?
During the struggle to desegregate lunch counters and public transportation, many people broke the law, knowing full well there was an unfair and unrelated penalty – being arrested and going to jail. They did it anyway and took the consequences. In so doing they made a point and eventually the rules changed. But they didn’t whine about the consequences being “unfair.” They were strong, and eventually they won.
Every day people get stopped for going no faster than the next driver. Fair? Maybe not. Tell it to the judge and you’ll pay the fine anyway.
I eat & drink what I like and I have low blood pressure and low cholesterol. My spouse has to be oh-so-careful and takes meds to keep both within reasonable limits. Fair? No. Just the luck of the genetic draw.
Only a child really expects life to be fair. When we grow up we try to change what we can and learn to deal with the rest.
Limbaugh is an entertainer. He has no special qualifications to talk politics.
Guess you missed all those “whiny” speeches by Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, eh?
“I have a dream…”
“Oh, stop your whining.”
What does it take? What does one have to have to be “qualified” to be a pundit?
How is Limbaugh any less educated on these matters than a columnist for the Washinton Post or someone on Fox News?
I’m hard pressed to see how Robbins can be characterized as “whining.” He was invited to take part in a public event, and then publicly uninvited because of political opinions that he did not express in conjunction with the event in question. He articulated his response. The baseball guy was the first to politicize the event, and Robbins expressed his opinion of that politicization. Where does “whining” come in? Methinks the OP and several posters here doth protest too much. Or, to put it differently if less eloquently, the whining is on the other foot.
Thank you for helping to make my point. There are no qualifications required. Therefore, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins are every bit as qualified as Rush Limbaugh to comment publicly on matters political.
I suspect that cryptofascists very often resort to simply spouting sarcasm.
These celebrities think that the entire world is required to kowtow to their every public belch as if it were some kind of divine wisdom.
It’s about time they got a dose of reality. If they have the right to spout off, then others have the right to not give them money. Do you deny that?