posted on April 14, 2003 08:51:29 AM new
This weekend the movie Bull Durham, on the anniversary of its release was to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Without bothering to contact Susan Saradon and Tim Robbins to discuss their fears first, the BHOF simply canceled the ceremony naming Sarandon and Robbins outspoken history as its reason.
Does this strike anyone else as strange? If you had planned such a large celebration for a year and a half, wouldn't you at least contact the couple and ask them if they would agree to keep political views out of the celebration before just canceling it?
Robbins has suggested that the move was politically motivated and I have to say that I wonder if he is not correct. Apparently they were notified at the same time as AP of the cancelation and the quite frankly when I heard the wording of the letter, it seemed to be more of an attack on the couple than a press release announcing a cancelation.
posted on April 14, 2003 09:40:01 AM new
The BHOF was well within its rights to cancel the program. The BHOF was clear in their cancellation letter to Mr and Mrs Sarandon that their public positions created a contraversial situation that the BHOF doesn't want to further showcase, and that their public anti-war displays actually could place our service men and women in greater harm.
The BHOF's actions are no more political than any other decision made by organizations or corporations when lending prestige and publicity to any entity.
I hope the two of them never find paid employment in this country again, and that goes for several other of these know nothing "star" mouths.
posted on April 14, 2003 10:22:00 AM new
Reamond, without insults because this is an honest question, not an attack....
How could the words of two California based actors endanger the lives of military members in Iraq? I've heard this arguement but I've never heard an explination of it.
Also where I do not argue that it is certainly BBHOF right to cancal the event, I do disagree that it it lacked political involvement. A non political statement would have omitted the accusation that the couples actions endagered soldiers.
The couples presence would only lend as much political meaning as the participants allowed. Robbins and Sarandon have both stated that for them, they viewed the upcoming weekend as an escape from everything going on in the world today to enjoy and celebrate a movie and baseball. I think it is too bad that the HOF did not feel the same way.
posted on April 14, 2003 10:27:02 AM new
Nah! Too busy inventing excuses to induct Pete (I nevered ganbled on BB!)Rose, a great example for yewts to follow!
Ralphie loves Mr Blonde:
"Are you gonna bark all day little doggie, or are you gonna bite?"
http://tinyurl.com/5duz
posted on April 14, 2003 10:36:26 AM new
Any celebs that state their opinions in public must also know that only they are accountable for the resulting reaction by the American public.
posted on April 14, 2003 10:44:11 AM new
Bear - I could agree completely with that reason had the BHOF cited a public outcry against the couples involvement in the ceremony but that is the one thing I have heard no mention of whatsoever. Had there been a planned boycott of the event, had others involved canceled their appearance based on the stance of Robbins and Saradon, by all means, you put that fire out swiftly.
Problem is that the there have been no reports of these types of happenings.
posted on April 14, 2003 11:04:47 AM new
It astonishes me to see that ultra-consertive types who generally lambaste any attempt at "political correctness" are defending the Hall of Fame's decision as perfectly justified, ignoring the fact that Hall of Fame president Dale Petroskey is a former spokesman for Ronald Reagan and longterm Republican party operative. Doesn't anyone wonder what relationship that had to do with his decision?
Clearly, Petroskey's decision had nothing to do with merit. "Bull Durham" is a great film. Sarandon and Robbins both turned in awesome performances, as did Kevin Costner. The script was amazing and the cinematography was beautiful. The film itself is wholly apolitical: More than anything, it's about three individual love affairs with baseball. If any movie belongs in the Hall of Fame (and I'm not sure what movies are doing in the hall of fame, but there are certainly other movies listed) then Bull Durham definitely belongs.
The Miami Herald had a great column on this (I'm linking from the Seattle Times page 'cause I can't find a direct Miami link.) The column raises a perfectly valid point: If you're judging people on their entire lives, what are folks like Orlando Cepada, Ferguson Jenkins (convicted of drug offenses) Ty Cobb (an all-around vicious racist with numerous documented acts of physical violence) John Clarkson (added to the Hall of Fame after he slashed his wife to death with a razor) doing in the Hall?
True, both Pete Rose and "Shoeless" Joe Jackson were excluded. But no matter how you feel about that, their offenses were at least related to baseball.
[ edited by msincognito on Apr 14, 2003 11:15 AM ]
posted on April 14, 2003 11:45:30 AM new Any celebs that state their opinions in public must also know that only they are accountable for the resulting reaction by the American public.
But the American Public did not make the decision, one man did. Robbing Americans of this celebration. And it is a public place at that.
Bear
Because of their actions, you have the right not to attend. But they denied MY right to attend.
Would it be acceptable to you if the CEO of your power company was against the Bush Administration and denied you service because of your beliefs? How about all public places and Utilities just deny those who disagree with their beliefs. Acceptable? Probably only if it didn't involve you I guess?
A politician will call you intelligent to keep you ignorant. I tell you that you are ignorant so that you may want to be intelligent - Eugene Debs
posted on April 14, 2003 11:48:58 AM new The BHOF was well within its rights to cancel the program.
The BHOF is a public place and has no right to enforce it personal opinion on anyone. Otherwise the Republican running the place would gladly deny the induction of blacks and others he considered inferior races....
The only consideration they have the right to enforce...did they earn their place...and they did without question.
A politician will call you intelligent to keep you ignorant. I tell you that you are ignorant so that you may want to be intelligent - Eugene Debs
[ edited by mlecher on Apr 14, 2003 11:51 AM ]
posted on April 14, 2003 12:49:46 PM new
"In a free country such as ours, every American has the right to his or her own opinions, and to express them. Public figures, such as you, have platforms much larger than the average American's, which provides you an extraordinary opportunity to have your views heard — and an equally large obligation to act and speak responsibly," Petroskey wrote.
"We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important — and sensitive — time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger. As an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict."
posted on April 14, 2003 01:44:32 PM newThe BHOF is a public place
No it is not. The BHOF is a private corporation. It does not deprive you or I of anything because we are not in any privity with them concerning the movie celebration.
An electric utility denying service due to political affiliation is not a valid analogy because electric utilities are monopolies. Businesses not involved in public accomodation can refuse "service" to anyone they choose.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is exactly what these "stars" did.
All wars have a political component right down to the individual soldiers. Not only did the "stars" public derision of the war and the president affect the morale of US soldiers it also emboldens the enemy. This costs lives on the battlefield. The North Vietnamese admited that the American "peace" protests caused them to leave the bargaining table and cost thousands of lives.
It is the height of naivete to not grasp how these protests effect war efforts.
posted on April 14, 2003 02:44:14 PM newThe North Vietnamese admited that the American "peace" protests caused them to leave the bargaining table and cost thousands of lives.
This is a constantly recurring bit of propaganda - hell, it's a flat-out lie - currently being widely disseminated by David Horowitz, pro-war agitator and general nutcase. (Many might remember him as one of the few conservatives with the gall to defend Ann Coulter and her nasty mouth right after the Sept. 11 attacks.)
Horowitz was, by his own account, a protestor who "crossed the line between dissent and actual treason." Seemingly ever since, he's been making a tidy little living for himself going around saying with an air of authority that because he was a treasonous, lying scoundrel, everyone else in the peace movement was as well. It's kind of like Ted Bundy going around arguing that everyone from the state of Washington is a pornography-obsessed serial killer.
But enough about him. The North Vietnamese did not "count on the division of our people at home to win the war for them" any more than the US government is counting on the support of the Iraqi people to win the current conflict. Were they aware of it? Certainly, and it's hard to imagine that they didn't take the opportunity to twist the knife a little during the 1970-71 talks (which Horowitz apparently seems to believe occured in 1968.) But it was clear long before those talks that the North Vietnamese were willing to accept horrific casualties - 20 North Vietnamese killed for every American - which is why the "war of attrition" was never going to work.
If you want to give credit to the U.S. peace movement for anything during that era, you can't ignore the fact that Gen. William Westmoreland (who sought to conceal the number of Americans being killed and the true troop strength of the North Vietnamese army) was heavily targeted by peace protestors. Johnson's decision to replace Westmoreland and his failed strategies was largely influenced by the group of senior military officials known as the "wise men," who in turn have said they were heavily influenced by information provided to Congress by the anti-war movement - for a long time, the only voices speaking out against the war effort. (Up until the time around the Tet Offensive, the American people had largely been fed a line of BS about how well the war was going.)
Unfortunately, Johnson and then Nixon made some disastrous mistakes that resulted in massive loss of life. But those mistakes were largely the result of an attempt to straddle the fence - pacify the hawks even as the administration was forced to realize they were trapped in a war without end. The deal that was finalized in 1971 was not substantially better than the ceasefire deal on the table in 1968.
As far as the supposed demoralizing impact on American troops in Iraq: How stupid do the "hawks" think American soldiers are?Most Americans involved in the protest movement are involved because they don't like the idea of Americans coming home in body bags. How can that possibly be interpreted as "non-supportive?"
It's ridiculous to say that Susan Sarandon flashing the peace sign on the Oscars telecast somehow "emboldens" the enemy. Like they were just going to sit there and let the American tanks run over them before this happened.
[ edited by msincognito on Apr 14, 2003 02:47 PM ]
[ edited by msincognito on Apr 14, 2003 02:49 PM ]
posted on April 14, 2003 03:02:52 PM new
::Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is exactly what these "stars" did. ::
How? I keep hearing this accusation but what AID and COMFORT was given to the enemy?
:: Not only did the "stars" public derision of the war and the president affect the morale of US soldiers it also emboldens the enemy. ::
Is there any proof of this?
I have yet to hear a sinle soldier say, "Well you know, I felt good about wht was being done here but I heard a Susan Sarandon commercial and now I'm not so sure"
Why is it that conservative america can scoff at anti war comments but does not give their military credit to do the same? They are old enough, intelligent enough and well trained enough to defend our country but not to form their own opinions? Personally I see those comments more demeaning to our military than any ati-war statement.
posted on April 14, 2003 03:26:13 PM new
Why do these people constantly wave the "Anti-American flag. Because to not do so would mean they would have to listen to the truth. The truth that their accusations and claims have no basis in fact. And their arguements are flawed. But by yelling "anti-American" loud and long they can put aside having to actually prove anything. Through their false patriotism they can ignore the mounting truth.
Be prepared to scream even louder people, the truth is building and you ain't gonna like it. Bush and Gang can't hold it back forever....
And Reamond...
BOHF maybe a private corporation, but it is open to the public, for the public.
posted on April 14, 2003 03:35:25 PM new
And reamond...
You have never answered how these Stars and anti-war protestors gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy. It has been asked of you many times. "Aid and Comfort" seems to be your mantra, but you never give evidence of anything. Along with many other things you spout out without proof or support. Sort of like an empty trash can, makes alot of noise...but nothing in it.
A politician will call you intelligent to keep you ignorant. I tell you that you are ignorant so that you may want to be intelligent - Eugene Debs
posted on April 14, 2003 04:38:26 PM new
I applaud the BBHOF for not allowing those two individuals a platform to spew their anti-american BS... You can critize him for cancelling the activities, but if he would of allowed those two a platform, they surely would of spewed forth their venom...
They give comfort and aid to the enemy by showing the enemy they have support here in this country... It is called being a part of a TEAM, I know that many here know nothing of this concept...wouldn't hurt you to learn it...
It may or may not cause a US soldier to hesitate, but their support for Saddam the dog and company gives the Iraqi soldiers motivation to fight on... where I come from that is aid and comfort to the enemy...
posted on April 14, 2003 09:23:45 PM newYou can critize him for cancelling the activities, but if he would of allowed those two a platform, they surely would of spewed forth their venom...
BS. Susan Sarandon was a presenter at the Oscars this year and all she did was wear a pin and flash the peace sign as she walked onstage. They have both said they would have honored a request from BHOF folks to refrain from politics and there's no evidence in the record to suggest they would have broken that promise.
They give comfort and aid to the enemy by showing the enemy they have support here in this country... It may or may not cause a US soldier to hesitate, but their support for Saddam the dog and company gives the Iraqi soldiers motivation to fight on... where I come from that is aid and comfort to the enemy...
Show me ONE credible source where either Sarandon or Robbins has 1) said they are "supporting" Saddam or 2) caused U.S. soldiers to hesitate. They have said they are against the war. That's about 20 steps aawy from "supporting Saddam," and ignores the fact that Robbins and Sarandon weren't even supposed to be speaking at this event. Petroskey was clearly seizing the chance to serve his old masters and make a public statement. Bet he wishes he hadn't now ... I know they do.
The really funny thing is that now Petroskey's such a Neanderthal that he didn't even include "the little lady" in the un-invitation letter -- apparently he missed the fact that Sarandon actually was in that movie and could be reached at the same address he had for Robbins. Maybe he doesn't realize that women are now allowed to attend school in this country and thus know how to read!
posted on April 15, 2003 07:24:37 AM new
If you can not see what Sarandon and the anti-war "stars" are doing as aid and comfort to the enemy, then nothing short of her and her husband shooting at US soldiers would apply in your mind.
The North Vietnamese admited that the American "peace" protests caused them to leave the bargaining table and cost thousands of lives.
This is a constantly recurring bit of propaganda - hell, it's a flat-out lie - currently being widely disseminated by David Horowitz
It is the truth about the North Vietnamese- they walked away from the bargaining table many times because they thought that with each new protest, they could demand better terms. Horowitz isn't the source of this fact, the North Vietnamese are the source of this statement. The only people denying it are the the washed up hippies from the 1960s that can't stand the blood on their hands.
Horowitz was a communist, as were his parents, and a left wing radical during the 1960s. He is exactly what the present organizers are for the current anti-war protesters.
Read his book. The radical leaders of the 1960s were frauds and criminals, just like they are now. The amazing thing is that there are still sheep around that blindly follow them.
posted on April 15, 2003 07:27:36 AM newMaybe he doesn't realize that women are now allowed to attend school in this country and thus know how to read!
Based on your reading comprehension... I don't think many women can read or as usual their little minds put it too simple to be understood correctly.
Oh and your link, of course some anti-american war protestor will not like what the BBHOF has done... you know what tough Sh*t.
Merely protesting the war means you are indirectly giving support to the enemy... you don't think they see that and then try to fight a little harder... please let me in to your imaginary world...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Apr 15, 2003 07:31 AM ]
posted on April 15, 2003 10:52:07 AM new
The N Vietnamese also stated that the war protests assured the commie leadership that defeating the US military wasn't necessary. They needed only to prolong the war and the war protesters would erode the political will of Americans and the South.
The vast majority of Americans have wised up to the facts about these war protesters. They realize that when your military are in the field, you do not politically support the enemy.
The lack of the commies to gain any traction in their protests is a testament to Americans realizing these creeps want America destroyed and their motives have nothing to do with war policy.
posted on April 16, 2003 04:10:43 PM new
So, twelvepole, you don't think women can read? Interesting, given that most of the people teaching reading in this country (and in the rest of the world) are women. Guess my simple little mind is not capable of figuring that out.
By the way, I think your own reading comprehension could use a little work ... both the links I posted were to articles by full-time professional sports columnists for major metro daily newspapers, not "war protestors."
Haven't you figured this out yet? I'm not arguing with you. I'm arguing against you. I'm not out to change YOUR mind. I just want to make sure nonsense is properly rebutted.
posted on April 16, 2003 08:25:13 PM newHaven't you figured this out yet? I'm not arguing with you. I'm arguing against you. I'm not out to change YOUR mind. I just want to make sure nonsense is properly rebutted.
posted on April 17, 2003 10:04:35 AM new
"Clueless in Hollywood"
Baseball Hall of Fame chief Dale Petroskey recently scrapped a special showing of the movie “Bull Durham,” citing the vocal anti -war criticisms mouthed by the flick’s stars, Tim Robbins and his main squeeze Susan Sarandon. Robbins had a conniption, whining that the cancellation violated his right to free speech. What a weenie.
And an ignorant weenie, at that.
A decision not to provide a particular forum for one’s speech is not the same as denying it altogether. This is a subtle though important difference apparently lost on Robbins and his fellow anti -Iraqi-liberation travelers. After all, it’s not like Petroskey planned to cut out Robbins’ tongue and leave him bleeding to death while tied to the left-field foul pole at Yankee Stadium.
The fact is, Tim’s still free to speak out against the war ‘til the cows come home...just not from a stage at the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Robbins - along with other celebrity liberals - such as that Ditzy Chick, Natalie Maines - also seem to think that free speech for them means...well, free speech for THEM. Not you. Not me. Them.
And certainly not free speech which is critical of THEIR free speech. In other words, they can say any stupid, anti -American thing THEY want - but WE are not allowed to say that we think what they say is...well, stupid. Hypocritical? You bet.
But the worst indictment against Robbins in this matter is his obvious ignorance of the Constitution.
You see, the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.” Well, Congress didn’t pass any law banning Tim and Susie from speaking at the Hall of Fame, so their constitutional rights have NOT been violated. Period.
The only things that have been violated here are the American public’s sensibilities for having to listen to this moronic couple’s rantings and the couple’s tender little feelings after being told publicly that their childish behavior had earned them a “time out.”
What’s frightening though, is that such ignorance of basic American principles and philosophies isn’t restricted to Hollywood muckity -mucks. Unfortunately, such ignorance runs rampant across the nation from sea to shining sea.
“Shocking as it may be,” writes columnist Suzanne Fields, “most high school graduates today have never read the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist Papers.”
For that matter, it would appear quite a few members of Congress and our state legislatures haven’t read these founding documents either.
Pulitzer Prize winning author David McCullough, whose biography of Founding Father John Adams continues to top best -selling lists, recently warned a Senate panel that we are “raising a generation of people who are historically illiterate” and ignorant of basic constitutional principles.
Civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, laments: “Having spoken to classes from elementary to graduate level, I have seen, with some exceptions, a dismaying unfamiliarity with the freedoms we are fighting to preserve during this war against terrorism.”
The situation is so bad that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R -Tenn.), a former secretary of education, has introduced legislation, titled the American History and Civics Act, which would train teachers and educate students on the ideas that our nation was founded upon through the creation of special summer academies.
Not good.
That such education isn’t already part of the regular government school curriculum is the problem. Involving the federal government in a whole new program to do what should already be done at the local level risks making a bad situation even worse. After all, it’s not like the feds exactly have an enviable track record in fixing problems it itself has created.
That such a proposal for the federal government to solve what should be a local problem is even being considered shows just how serious this danger is to our constitutional republic.
Add the fact that the average American probably doesn’t know that ours even IS a constitutional republic and not a democracy - or, for that matter, what the difference is - and it’s not difficult to understand how yahoos like Robbins can be so ignorant to the true meaning of freedom of speech.
Anyway, bravo to Dale Petroskey and the Baseball Hall of Fame for putting its foot down...even if it stepped on a few Hollywood toes in the process.
posted on April 17, 2003 10:38:32 AM new
I totally agree with the BHOF.
Yes, everyone is free to say what they want, but that doesn't mean anyone else HAS to give you the platform to speak it.
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 17, 2003 11:19:09 AM new
wgm- Great piece. The article says what I have said on this board for months now about free speech and the liberal double standard.
I also lamented on this board the number of people, including mlecher, who don't even know what form of government we have and know nothing about the constitution.
Those "stars" have a right to say what they wish without government interference. But the constitution has NEVER protected an individual from the private social and economic costs of publicly stating their opinion.
A movie studio is within its rights to refuse to hire people that have a certain public persona due to their public statements. There is nothing "unconstitutional" about that.
