The only thing new about a politically-oriented speech being given on the Oscars is the degree of hostility with which such endeavors are met in this country.
One would think that spirited discussion of the current state of affairs would be greeted with an air of appreciation that we live in a country where such things are not only accepted, but encouraged and protected by our Founding Fathers. But no. Opposition instead is drawn in the most stark and distorted of terms: If you’re opposed to Bush’s actions, you’re in favor of dictators. If you’re opposed to the war, you’re against the soldiers risking their lives. And heaven help anyone in the entertainment industry who speaks out: They’re risking watching their livelihood spiral down the drain.
What a shame we don’t live in a country where criticism of the government carries stiff penalties. Where the citizens know better than to speak out. Where the residents fall into line…or else. A country like…I dunno…Iraq.
PAD





Hollywood like Michael Moore in theory not in reality. Or they might have been sticking up for Heston after the poor fool was picked on.
PAD,
Just because someone has the ability to do something, does not mean that they should do it.
Just because it’s legal or allowed does not make it right.
Additionally, it appears that you are saying it’s fine for someone in the entertainment industry to state an opinion. But if you have an opposite opinion then you may as well live in Iraq?
Sorry – I don’t get it. It’s OK for one side to have an opinion – just not the general masses?
Frank Baker
Love your work.
Envious of your talent.
Hoping I’ve completely misunderstood your point.
Well, y’know PAD, we *don’t* live in a country where there are stiff penalties for criticizing the government. Moore wasn’t arrested. He was booed. Why? Because some other citizens didn’t like what he was saying. That’s their right as well. Moore has been criticized in the press, sure. But that’s the flip side of taking shots at the President on the most public of stages.
Despite what the anti-Bush crowd would lead us to believe, there is no suppression of speech that is critical of the government. The idea that members of the Left are somehow in *danger* in Hollywood is one of the more absurd concepts that has been floated. While there are more conservatives in Hollywood than is widely known, that number is nothing compared to the number of hard-core liberals on both sides of the camera. The conservatives tend to stay quiet to preserve *their* jobs.
The biggest problems I had with Moore’s comments (and the comments of many other Hollywood Liberals…a special breed mind you) is that they are mindless and lacking in much substance. There is plenty of debate going on about the war. As there should be. There is no suppression of speech or debate. To insinuate otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The First Ammendment guarantees your right to speak. It doesn’t demand that others have to like it.
Moore has a right to express his opinion whenever he wants to. However, just because someone has a right to do something does not mean that it isn’t in poor taste for the current forum.
People don’t watch the Oscars to hear political debates. They watch them so that they can see the pretty people in pretty clothes give vacuous speeches thanking people in an insincere manner.
I remember one year when every presenter and recipient used the forum to give ten minute speeches on their pet political issue, including Richard Gere trying to produce a mass telepathic channelling to the premier of China.
So, he got booed and a few people in the media criticized him. If that’s the worst he suffers, I don’t see how this is a problem. After all, all of the “booers” were just exhibiting their right to express their opinion.
The real scandal from the Oscars this year was everyone applauding a rapist getting the Best Director award.
I’m forced to agree with the coments here, PAD. I personally am against this war, and I have a shelf full of almost every book you’ve written sitting above my bed, so I’m definately a fan.
With that said, you’re wrong. Moore was NOT dragged off in chains and shot in the street. Nor was anyone else. Simply because you get a backlash for an opinion doesn’t make the opinion illegal, it makes the opinion in the minority.
THATS IT.
There are more people supporting this war than against it. God help me, I have no idea why, but they are just as entitled to their opinion. Plus they are allowed to go fight if they want, or sit at home and hope they don’t get drafted.
My basic beef with Moore’s speech is that he didn’t set it up, he didn’t play it smooth, and all he did was attack. He didn’t make an intelligent comment, he just attacked.
So, it’s OK for someone to make a political speech at an awards ceremony, but it’s not OK for the audience to disagree? I feel that the booing of Michael Moore wasn’t that so many people were in disagreement with what he said, but rather the place he said it. It was supposed to be a time of celebration.
And he probably loved being booed. Gives him more air time later than Adrian Brody exploring Hallie Berry’s G.I. tract with his tongue. He’s no longer an advocate for the little people (as he was in “Roger and Me”). He’s now put himself as being more important than any message he wants to convey.
Hëll, he probably wishes he didn’t win the Oscar so he could claim that the voting there was fictitious as well.
I find that the biggest censors are typicallly not government sponsored, created, or endorsed.
Some people on one side of the fence make faces at people on the other side of the fence, and some people on the other side of the fence make faces at people on the one side of the fence. If only they hadn’t replaced the grass with artificial turf…
Come on and ride the fence, and ride it…
WE have given celebrities the voice to speak with. WE have elevated them to a place of superiority over the common man. It’s why WE care what soda they drink, clothes they wear, or hair style they have.
But WE can’t stand when they use that voice in a way WE don’t like. This goes the same for Charlton Heston as well as Michael Moore.
These people are Americans too, and have the right to speak their mind. And because of where WE have placed them in society, they get to use microphones. They get to speak for those of us who don’t have the microphones and cameras.
Right now, however, there’s a campaign to silence voices of dissent. If you don’t believe it, then take off your idealogical blinders (of whatever bent) and read over the past two day entries on this blog! And this is just people who like Peter David enough to visit his website.
There are posts that are equivicating speaking out against the government to calling soldiers “baby killers” and that expressing your opinion is the same as blowing up a building.
As far as Michael Moore being “booed off stage”…the exact same speech recieved huge applause at the Idependent Spirit Awards. Attended by many of the same people, yet shown not on network, but on a small cable channel. Hmmmm….I guess it’s called “being Politicaly Correct” for a reason.
Hollywood is nothing if not about perception. If Justin Timberlake uses his first ammendment rights to make insulting comments about his teenybopper fans, it just might hurt him financially. This is not the same thing as the government dragging you out of bed in the middle of the night and killing you. It’s insulting to people who live in such a country to compare to two.
Michael Moore publically insulted the president of the United States at war time and then took his Oscar, rode home in a limo, and kicked back in his mansion. Oh no! Will he face any real repercussions? Most of the people *truly* offended don’t see his movies anyway.
Now, if someone insulted Saddam Hussein publically, they’d be shot dead and so would their family. Maybe even their friends for kicks.
Meanwhile, we can express our views on this board and any other board, in the newspapers, on television — that’s true freedom. It’s the spirited debate you see in this country every day.
Now, opposition to *rudeness* is another thing. Just because you’re free to say something, that doesn’t mean you won’t be pelted by rotten tomatoes.
Hëll, he probably wishes he didn’t win the Oscar so he could claim that the voting there was fictitious as well.
Actually, he was making a big bru-ha-ha before the awards about the voting policies…Something about Sony wasn’t willing to send out copies of one of the other documentaries (not his) in the running to the voters so that they could all be judged equally.
Umm, could it be PAD started with the Moore thing and sequed into a rant on the mischaracterization of some protestors in general?
I’m definately on the opposite side of the fence of the protestors, but not all can be lumped into a single anti-american bucket.
If PAD was just talking about the Oscars, then I don’t get it either. Sounded like everyone exercized their free speech, not just the moron on stage.
God bless America! After all, Moore still has a tongue which he wouldn’t have if he dissed ol’ Saddam.
Still, idiot though he is, his comments at the Oscars do not support Saddam, they had nothing to do with Saddam.
If, of course, our service men saw it, I could see them being very discouraged and angry. THAT’S the problem with using that forum. He may not have a thing against the military (he may have, I’ve no idea) but the grunts protecting his right to be an idiot deserve better from him and all of us.
Has Mr. Moore been deprived of his right to free speech?
Have the Dixie Cicks?
Richard Gere?
Peter David?
No. Not one.
The chicks chose to speak out while on foreign(albeit friendly)soil. If they choose to open their mouths and voice their opinions, should they not expect a reaction?
Sheryl Crow has no problem whatsoever choosing which conflict she will support. Want to know where she stands? Don’t ask her. Just check to see who’s in the White House.
No one is asking for their opinions. They are offered freely. You nor they would be bìŧçhìņg if box office or album sales went up. That would be a just reaction to their comments. All else is some ridiculous persecution due to the ignorance of those who disagree.
Have you taken to task Mr. Moore for his blatant reconstruction of reality in Bowling For Columbine? Check out opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233 to find out how well the oh so altruistic Moore bends reality to create his argument.
Against the war? Fine. Against all war? Great too. I understand opposing war across the board. But cut out the sanctimonious bûllšhìŧ. It is the tone of much of the opposition coming from public figures that has caused people to react so strongly.
The argument that there happen to be other evil men in the world besides Saddam doesn’t wash. Neither does condemning this action because Bush is in the driver’s seat. Likewise to those who conveniently brush aside the reasons we as a nation have stated why we are engaged in this war just to fulfill their momentary needs.
The US has been taken to task for not entering WWII early enough.
We went to Bosnia with much less at stake for our security than in this action.
Accusations have been charged to both Clinton and Bush for not preventing 9/11.
One cannot have it both ways.
I will admit that there were diplomatic shortcomings in preparation for this action. I will also submit that there are nations who knowingly undermined the US for less than admirable purposes. Now France wants to ride the fence. Now we find out that Russia has been supplying illegal arms to Iraq.
I hate looking at our soldiers faces on tv as they are held prisoner. I cried on Sunday as news of dead and captured soldiers were being reported. No one wants war. But the world will be safer with Saddam gone. The more I research Saddam and his reign, the more I am convinced that the people of Iraq need to be freed from this regime. If democracy can gain some sort of foothold there and is allowed to grow, even though it will take years and many hardships, then it will be better for future generations of Iraqis. Is there a chance that democracy won’t take hold? Sure. But the alternative has been staring us in the face for years and it has only gotten worse.
Hope this helps you understand why sympathy for Moore and the chicks is sorely misplaced.
Stephen Robinson posted:
“Michael Moore publically insulted the president of the United States at war time and then took his Oscar, rode home in a limo, and kicked back in his mansion. Oh no! Will he face any real repercussions? Most of the people *truly* offended don’t see his movies anyway.”
Ummm… I truly doubt that Moore lives in a mansion. I don’t think he’s even all that wealthy. A common misconception equates fame with fortune, when in fact there are plenty of famous people that aren’t that rich.
Now, as to whether he rented a limo for the night, I can’t say. I’d consider it more likely that he showed up in a trendy hybrid vehicle.
Also, it’s importnat to note that none of Moore’s documentary films have been bankrolled by Hollywood. The funding for “Bowling For Columbine” came from Canadian sources.
I have many problems with the way war protestors (for lack of a better term) are treated for their position on this issue. The biggest problem is the way most protest statements are typically rebutted and written-off by someone saying “well, if you don’t like it, you are un-American.”
That kind of attitude does not argue for the pro-war position to me. It says: “if we could drag you out of bed in the middle of the night and shoot you, we would.”
I am anti-war. I don’t believe this war is an effort to “protect my freedom” (whatever that means) or to liberate the people of Iraq. I don’t believe President Bush has been honest about his motives for attacking Iraq. This whole thing started (supposedly) to hunt down and bring to justice the terrorists responsible for the September 11th attacks. Does that ring a bell with anyone? Have the terrorists been captured? Are we any closer to destroying terrorism? Or are we simply being distracted by pursuing an easier, more locatable threat?
I am anti-war, but I am a greatful American citizen. The two are not mutally exclusive.
Peter,
I admire your work and I respect and appreciate that your opinions on Iraq are different from mine. But, I have to ask, what are you talking about?
Michael Moore is not going to be arrested for the remarks he made. He had the first amendment right to make them. People who disagree with Moore have the first amendment right to say so. Trent Lott had the right to say America would have been better off had Strom Thurmond become president in 1948. Nevertheless that statement cost him. The Dixie Chicks have the right to say whatever they want against the president, but I don’t have to buy their CD’s if I don’t want to.
Perhaps your point is that you don’t like being called anti-American or pro-Saddam for opposing the war (if indeed you are being called that). Fair enough. I don’t like being ridiculed by liberals for my beliefs either. Mudslinging occurs across the political spectrum, and if you think the left doesn’t engage in it you should take a close listen to James Carville or Paul Begala sometime. Heck, you should listen to what Michael Moore said at the Oscars.
Incidentally, what do you suppose the response would have been had George W. Bush used the nonword “fictiction”?
I think the point PAD is trying to make is that any commentary against the War or the president is seen as anti-American and anti-troops. It seems anytime decides to level criticism they’re treated as if they support terrorism or hate this country.
That’s not to say that some of the criticism that’s being made isn’t off-base or untrue, but on the flipside you’ve got the fanatics that believe the US and Bush can do no wrong. The problem is the pro-Bush fanatics (Not saying everyone pro-Bush or pro-war is a fanatic, far from it) are praised, while the legitimate critics are viewed in the same light as the fanatical dissenters.
People on both sides need to take a step back and actually listen what others are saying rather than just dismissing it as Bush-worship or hating America.
>>The only thing new about a politically-oriented speech being given on the Oscars is the degree of hostility with which such endeavors are met in this country.
Actually, I remember an anti-Israel speech made by Vanessa Redgrave at the Oscars that met with a lot of hostility.
“The two are not mutally exclusive.”
I meant to write “mutually,” of course. I don’t even know what “mutally” means. Maybe something to do radiation….
It’s frustration.
Bush didn’t exactly win with a mandate from the masses (or with the most votes, for that matter). But instead of acting more moderately, which would seem to be the will of the people, he’s been Arch Conservative Man since day one: growing the deficit, removing environmental protections, disregarding the UN. And now, he’s led us into a jihad. With few allies. And no way to pay for it.
This all adds up to create a frustrated minority (myself included) that’s more vocal than the majority.
’04 will be interesting to say the least.
First let me start with this. I am a staunch supporter of my commander-in-chief and our armed forces. I pray for a swift American victory with the fewest possible casualties on either side.
Having said that I would like to add this. While I do not agree with Michael Moore or the Dixie Chicks I am also a staunch supporter of their right to voice their opinion. If Mr. Moore ever makes a documentary that I am interested in I will watch it. And I will continue to listen to the Dixie Chicks because I like their music. These are personal choices. Your choices may differ. I feel blessed that I live in a country that allows me to make the choices I make and allows the Dixie Chicks and Mr. Moore the right to make their’s.
To quote John Wayne when asked about Jane Fonda: “While I don’t agree with what she says, I support her right to say it”.
I think we already covered some of this ground yesterday, but that’s okay, an open discourse of opinion is always worth continuing. Once again, I agree with Moore’s sentiments, although I think he could have found a subtler way of expressing them. On the flip side, I support the audience in their response, be it cheers or boos, but bear in mind, what we heard on television isn’t necessarily an accurate representation of what happened. Everything goes through a big sound mixing board with lots of buttons and sparkly things on it. The technician turns down one mike and raises the volume on another, or the director, if he chose, could instruct him to add a few additional sound elements to the mix. The next time you see a clip of Moore’s speech, notice how the audience reaction doesn’t necessarily correspond to what you’re hearing. As to some people’s earlier comments about our supposedly free society, you need to get out more. A few weeks ago, a lawyer got arrested in a New York shopping mall for wearing a T-shirt urging peace. Not anarchy, nor a racist message or something is poor taste. Peace. And he was arrested. The irony of that situation is that it was a shirt he’d just bought in that very mall. That same week, the webmaster of a White House parody site, who had posted a mock bio of Ðìçk Cheney’s wife was sent a letter on White House paper strongly suggesting he take it down. As it turned out, Cheney said he had nothing to do with the letter after all. It was a White House lawyer who thought, well, it was a good idea. An implied threat is still a threat. It doesn’t make any difference if you’re holding a gun to my head, have it un-holstered on your belt with your hand six inches above it. In either case, all I’ll be able to think about is, ‘This guy is going to shoot me!’ That implied threat is to get me black-listed. Or audit my taxes. Or put together a dossier on my daily activities. Or tap my phones. Or monitor my mail. ‘That could never happen here in America!’ I hear you say. Tell that to the late Richard Nixon; those are all tricks from his play book three decades ago.
Of course he had the right to say what he said. But we also had the right to boo him off the stage. Isnt America great?
Seems to me that Peter’s comments were prompted not by those who booed Michael Moore for what he said in his acceptance speech but more by comments like e.g. on the previous Oscar thread, where someone wrote: “Michael Moore needs to be shot”. Not exactly an endorsement of first amendment rights.
And there certainly is a tendency to try and silence people who are against the Iraq War by declaring them unpatriotic, anti-American, associating them with Saddam Hussein or declaring them enemies of the US armed forces. Not that this is restricted to the campaign against Hollywood Liberals (not that I would consider Michael Moore one of those). The same applies to those on the right opposed to the war (e.g. when David Frum recently accused fellow conservatives Patrick Buchanan and Robert Novak of hating their country and wanting it to lose the war in National Review). And of course it approaches surreality when you see people who avoided the draft (or at least front-line service) when there still was a draft, or people who have no intention of joining the military calling into question the patriotism of decorated veterans because they oppose or opposed George W. Bush’s war against Iraq. Or when politicians who sermonize about the need to “support our soldiers” at the same time propose slashing cuts in veterans’ medical, disability and benefit programs…
I did’nt see Moore’s speech, so I won’t comment on that.
But I agrree with PAD that protesting the war doesn’t equate to not supporting the men and women in uniform.
Iraq was contained, and I think Bush did a lousy job of getting the other nations on board. That being said, the war is in progress, and now we have to see it through as quickly as possible.
History will show whether or not Bush made the right decision.
I have to agree with the majority of the previous comments. While I believe that every American has the right to express their views (political, religious, etc.), there is a time and place to do so. The Academy Awards is not a political convention. (Well, not in the usual sense.) It is a forum to celebrate excellence in movies. That’s it. Michael Moore’s comments should have been suited for that venue. Every presenter and nominee were told beforehand not to express their political view whether they be anti-war or pro-war. Nobody mentions that part. It wasn’t like pro-war opionions were tolerated while anti-war ones weren’t. I keep hearing about how people are feeling the backlash from speaking out against the war, but what about the people who feel that this war is justified? Are they treated any differently? I’ve seen those people treated with derision and mocked as incompetent warmongeres similar to the treatment that our President is receiving. This is your website and it is perfectly acceptable or you to express your views. I don’t think that you will be dragged off in chains or shot for your opinions. If you win an award though (and your books should definately!) please be gracious and acknowledge your win without any extraneous views that have nothing to do with why you are there.
>>Seems to me that Peter’s comments were prompted not by those who booed Michael Moore for what he said in his acceptance speech but more by comments like e.g. on the previous Oscar thread, where someone wrote: “Michael Moore needs to be shot”. Not exactly an endorsement of first amendment rights.<<
Yes. And I read that right after I read the article in EW talking about how country radio stations had banished the Dixie Chicks from their playlists, while people around the country smashed their CDs (although apparently it hasn’t affected their record sales, so that’s something.)
What I’m saying–and I thought this was clear, but obviously it wasn’t–is that for many people in this country, freedom of speech is not met with more freedom of speech, as it should be. It’s met instead with threats. With boycotts. With attacks not on what’s being said, but on those who are saying them. With hostility that those who have opposing views would dare to say such a thing, and they must therefore be punished for those actions.
I’m not debating the *right* to take these actions. I’m questioning the wisdom of those who live in a free society showing such naked hatred for a society that permits freedom. And I’m pointing out that, if you take that view to its logical extreme, you have Iraq…which we’re supposed to be fighting against.
And for the record, despite the fact that I disagreed with Vanessa Redgrave’s “Palestinian thugs” comments, I felt the professional backlash it had against her was completely unjustified. So her political views differed from others. That didn’t make her any less an actress.
The Oscar cast isn’t the place to make a political statement? Bull. It’s beamed across the world, and most of the acceptance speeches are boring as hëll. It’s the perfect place. Livens things up. I’m all for livening things up.
I have to say, though, that I think Adrien Brody, the actor who won for “The Pianist” totally overshadowed Moore. He expressed anti-war sentiments, but did it in such a beautiful, heart-felt and stylish way that not only did he get the band to stop playing so he could continue (an astounding feat in and of itself), but he brought everyone to their feet. I personally thought it was the best moment of the evening. But you can’t have one extreme without the other.
PAD
From Jim:
“Has Mr. Moore been deprived of his right to free speech?
Have the Dixie Cicks?
Richard Gere?
Peter David?
No. Not one.”
You’re right of course. What has been almost as bad though, is the subjugation of the corporate news media. While only Helen whatshername has been able to question openly the administration in its press confrences(and then only Ari “Americans need to realize they have to watch what they say” Fleischer.
Basically the edict is this: If you question us, we won’t give you access to the president,administration or the war. Now the press is “imbedded” with the military and reports are subject to military censorship before they are broadcast. If you think this is truly the most televised military action in history, you’re only half right.
As for the calls of protestors “un-american” and the like, I myself was recently accused of “obviously wanting Saddam Hussein to take over the world” because I wish to see Mr. Bush impeached.For me, that is like the leap often made between gay marraige and sex with monkeys.
It is not just the “war” in Iraq that I am against,but the total “war on terrorism” which to me is just an excuse to get rid of our civil liberties. Shortly after 9/11(I’ll have to look up the exact date, or just feel free to email me about this) Bush signed an executive order that basically repealed the Freedom of Information Act. Now there is the Security Enhancement Act of 2003.
Bush,Ashcroft and the rest(including the congress) should all be removed.
Michael Moore and Adrian Brody are my new heroes!
Sorry PAD, if this was too long. I’m just really passionate about it.
Col
I’m questioning the wisdom of those who live in a free society showing such naked hatred for a society that permits freedom.
Peter, are you saying that those who disagree with Moore or wish to boycott the Dixie Chicks are showing “naked hatred” for the United States? That would be no different than those people who call Michael Moore “anti-American” for expressing his anti-Bush sentiments. Am I misunderstanding you? I hope I am.
//The Oscar cast isn’t the place to make a political statement? Bull. It’s beamed across the world, and most of the acceptance speeches are boring as hëll. It’s the perfect place. Livens things up. I’m all for livening things up.//
LOL, I can agree with the boring part, which is why I skip most award shows, including this one. But as I said, Moore and everyone else has a right to express their views, but there is a strong popular sentiment that this isn’t what the Oscars are “for.”
Freedom of speech should always be met with more speech, whether that is booing or simply decided not to buy someone’s CD.
I find the idea of a radio station refusing to air an artist’s music because of their political views repugnant, but it is their right. After all, the station’s owner has the first amendment right to express or choose not to express whatever views they want.
The real problem with this is that we have a culture that worships fame, or even infamy. People who are famous are almost automatically thought of as being smarter or better than the average Joe. It doesn’t even matter what someone is famous these days. Look at Monica Lewinski.
Why should we even care what the Dixie Chicks or Martin Sheen or Charlton Hesten think of the war? Take what they say as a grain of salt. Chances are they aren’t much more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.
Hëll, anyone who cheers an admitted rapist who fled the country rather than pay his due, is automatically an idiot in my not-so opinion.
PAD:
I detest organized boycotts, as well (unless it’s a boycott against a corporation that violates the law — not hiring minorities, for example).
I believe the answer to free speech is *always* free speech. However, no one has a right to an audience.
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from risk. I have no real problem with people who opposed Redgrave’s anti-semitic nonsense choosing not to see her work and line her pockets.
I have friends who refuse to patronize Dominos because proceeds go to anti-abortion causes. I find this perfectly legitimate (however, I still on occasion eat at Dominos — I have no problem with their choosing to spend their profits however they wish).
I suppose it’s a case of everyone’s mileage varying.
Ghahhhh!
Would folks READ what’s being said???
Free speech is NOT being met with free speech…it’s being met with coercive action. THAT’S what PAD is talking about!
Being banned from playlists? State legislatures passing resolutions to require free concerts for specified causes? Speech, my ášš! That’s just political retribution for taking an unpopular stand and in no way justified under the philosophy of free speech.
Yeah, go slag celebrities for taking unpopular stands, but don;t blacklist them and don’t pass measures in lawmaking bodies to have them do this or that.
What no one has mentioned is that the show’s director turned up the music before Mr. Moore finished speaking in an attempt to stop him. And it wasn’t exactly like he’d taken extra time over his diatribe.
Apologies for the length of this note. The following comes from http://www.nomorefakenews.com and it looks to be a FICTITIOUS “What If?” scenario written by the author Jon Rappoport:
COMPLETING MICHAEL MOORE’S OSCAR SPEECH
March 25. The man has chutzpah. A fictitious president is not a phrase many people would use at the podium on Oscar night. Then he goes on:
“But you know, folks, if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, he would have been fictitious too. That’s right. Oh, those Democrats were cheating every which way themselves.
“Don’t you get it? We are ruled by One Party Posing As Two. Despite last-minute cop-outs, the Democrats voted war powers for Bush. The Democrats are under the same oil umbrella as the Republicans. It just isn’t as obvious. We don’t need a Ðìçk Cheney in the White House to be run by oil.
“The political system is corrupt all the way up and down on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats just do a better job of pretending they care about ‘the people.’
“If I could wave a magic wand, everybody in this country would stay home on election day in 2004. Nobody would vote. Now THAT would send a real message to Washington. That would finally remove the mandate we give to the government to act on behalf of all of us.
“I’ve only been telling half of the story. And tonight I thought I’d fill in the rest. My job is to expose the phony baloney, so there it is. Wake up, everybody. You’re being whipsawed by both parties. Don’t you get it? It’s a good-cop bad- cop number they keep running on us.”
Scattered applause starts to swell, and suddenly everyone in the audience stands up and cheers wildly, as if a trance has been broken.
The dismal Oscar ratings spike all over America. People find themselves clicking to ABC. Mickey Mouse rushes out on to the stage and raises his little fist in the air and shouts, “And the big corporations are feeding both heads of the One Party Posing As Two!”
He brings the house down. The audience is screaming GO MICKEY!
A spell has been cast off. People look at each other, as if seeing for the first time. The filters from the eyes have been removed.
Yeah, whatever.
So what did you think of last week’s ANGEL?
You have the right to speak your mind – but we also reserve the right to boo at you if we don’t agree. Free Speech IS a two-way street.
I personally thought that Bowling for Colombine guy was incredibly insulting, and thus the audience has it’s free speech to boo him off stage.
Although, as the Daily Show pointed out, they where giving the award to a Political Activist – so it shouldn’t have been much of a surprise he’s go and say something stupid
And yes – I call what he said “Stupid” Thats my right to free Speech.
Please stop acting like we’re in a dictatorship just becuase people don’t agree with you.
I don’t even like the Dixie Chicks but has anyone seen the article in the NYT (it was today or yesterday) that said there was reason to believe that the “boycotts” and “demonstrations” were organized by radio conglomerates that had strong business and financial ties to George W. going back to his days as governor of Texas?
And if the Dixie Chicks record sales (which the conglomerates can’t control) go up even when their radio airplay (which the conglomerates do control) goes down, what does that say?
“With attacks not on what’s being said, but on those who are saying them.”
Which pretty well describes Moore’s little diatribe.
In a related matter, Tony Blair, who you had previously said you “felt sorry for”, seems to be turning British public opinion to his side–new polls show a majority favoring the war for the first time and his personal popularity has rebounded.
Not that this makes his actions right or wrong. Indeed, it would seem that polls do not determine what positions he deems correct, unlike some other politicians. THOSE are the ones I feel sorry for.
How silly. The only freedom is of speech?
While it might not be my reaction, organizing boycotts, banishing people from playlists, et al, are equally protected rights. As they should be. Publicly expressed views are going to get a reaction. If they aren’t to your liking, then by-golly, either have the balls to stand up for what you think or slink off an whine. Those are equally your rights.
As for some guy who got arrested for a peace t-shirt? Rest of the story, please. That isn’t all there is to it. CLEARLY.
As for someone getting a letter from a White House lawyer for something that could be libelous? Big surprise. Mrs. Cheney is not a public figure, her husband is. Your right to free speech ends when it is damaging to another person’s reputation.
I defend the rights to protest the war, but I would love to hear alternatives to war instead of that it’s just a bad idea. It ain’t too bad for those whom Saddam is lining up to kill next. I for one would love a workable alternative.
What is it?
<
“What I’m saying–and I thought this was clear, but obviously it wasn’t–is that for many people in this country, freedom of speech is not met with more freedom of speech, as it should be. It’s met instead with threats. With boycotts. With attacks not on what’s being said, but on those who are saying them. With hostility that those who have opposing views would dare to say such a thing, and they must therefore be punished for those actions.”>>
With all due respect, Mr. David, just how does a fan go about registering his dissent with a comment made by a famous artist or celebrity? We don’t have access to a microphone or national news outlets like they do. We could write them a letter that we don’t even know if they get, much less read. So yes, the ONLY real voice a fan may have is CHOICE. That’s all a boycott is really. No one is FORCED to support a boycott .Or unpopular statements…except maybe in countries like…I dunno….Iraq?
Mr. David,
Hate to tell you you’re flat-out wrong on your own web page, but…
Whaddaya mean “new?!”
The hostility’s at least as old as the term “Fighting Words.” Look at this country’s Red Scares in the 1920’s and the 1950’s.
Puncture someone’s precious vision of how the country operates, and they react as if you were threatening their physical well-being.
This country doesn’t need sensitivity training, it needs thick-skin training.
Julio: Michael Moore lives in Manhattan, but probably not in a mansion; apartments are expensive enough here!
Joe N.: Good points, Mark Evanier also talked about the sound mixing in his blog yesterday.
Robert: Yeah, “fictition” was pretty unfortunate (shades of Fred Durst’s “agreeance”) but Michael was obviously flustered, he really didn’t express himself well…
Which is pretty much my view of things, Peter, and I note that you also mention this in additional comments. I absolutely agree that Adrian Brody’s speech conveyed the exact same unhappiness with the war, but it was the WAY he said it that resulted not only in the orchestra not playing him off but in the standing ovation. Michael’s way too set in how he does things to change his stripes now, and I’m sure he’s accepted the boos as the price he pays for going overboard with the stridency. It’s why, as Luke noted and as Jon Stewart also said last night, viewers (the left included!) like the IDEA of Michael Moore better than the REALITY. (Remember, the audience was very much with him until he opened his mouth!)
A few things:
The Domino’s thing is something of an urban legend. The company has never given to Operation Rescue or any other pro-life organization. However, the founder of the company is STAUNCHLY pro-life and has made several personal donations to OR and similar causes. Of course, he made most of that money through Domino’s. So indirectly, yes, it’s possible that if you buy pizza from Domino’s, some of your money may go to OR. But it’s incorrect to say that the company is doing this. Details on this are at the Urban Legends Reference Pages – the specific info is at http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/domino.asp .
Loved the stuff that Andrew C. posted from John Rappoport — couldn’t agree more.
As to Cheryl’s comments on the director turning the music up to drown Moore out, Mark Evanier reports that prevailing sentiment around Hollywood also has it that the boos may have been somewhat slanted, not largely coming from the crowd but instead from stagehands who knew where the house mics were located. ME does post some info that may contradict this, as well:
http://www.povonline.com/News032203.htm#032403c
Finally, as to Pack’s comments: the effect of the Dixie Chicks boycott — despite increased record sales — could still hurt them. While the album sales charts are based strictly on sales, singles charts are based on a mix of sales and airplay, with airplay getting more weight. They could conceivably never have another hit single should the boycott efforts stay in place. And while that’s unlikely to hurt their current album or backlist, as awareness of those discs is already high, it could certainly be detrimental to sales of future albums (the average joe isn’t aware a record exists until they hear a song on the radio). Their concert ticket sales don’t seem to have suffered yet, though, so I think they’ll be OK.
And yes, corporate radio sucks, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the conspiracy theory you’re posting is true. I’ve heard of stations pulling the Chicks for a bare handful of complaints, and I’ve also heard that organized right-wing groups are mass-spamming radio stations to pull the Chicks.
Elayne said: “Michael Moore lives in Manhattan, but probably not in a mansion; apartments are expensive enough here!”
Having read STUPID WHITE MEN, I knew that Moore lived in Manhattan, but somehow forgot about it when posting.
Having seen some of the holes in the wall friends call “apartments” in Manhattan, and having found that they pay significantly MORE than I pay to rent a 2500 sq. ft. house on a half-acre lot in Melbourne, FL, I know you’re correct about the cost of living, too!
I’m not pretending that Moore doesn’t do well financially — surely better than I — but I doubt he’s considered wealthy. Maybe lower upper class.
<
“I agrree with PAD that protesting the war doesn’t equate to not supporting the men and women in uniform.”>>
Ultimately, do you know how stupid that really sounds? It’s like protesting sports but being FOR the people that play them. Against art, but FOR the people that create it. Or protesting books, but being FOR the people that write or publish them, So really, explain to me how you can be against the war, but FOR the people that fight it?
<<“Iraq was contained, and I think Bush did a lousy job of getting the other nations on board. “>>
I have a problem with “containment”. You haven’t tamed the tiger, you’ve merely caged it. That’s fine if you’re outside the cage. But if you were in the cage with the tiger, I wonder what your response would be to people outside the cage who merely told you to “Be patient, we’re discussing it.”
EClark1849 queries:
>>>
So really, explain to me how you can be against the war, but FOR the people that fight it?
<<<
Simple. We all want them to come home safely whether we’re for the war or not.
“Ultimately, do you know how stupid that really sounds? It’s like protesting sports but being FOR the people that play them.”
Except for the massive amounts of negatives in the sentence, it actually does make sense. It’s basically the “love the sinner, hate the sin” stance: I didn’t want the troops to invade Iraq (not without UN backing, anyway), but now that they’re over there, I hope they come back safely.
>>Peter, are you saying that those who disagree with Moore or wish to boycott the Dixie Chicks are showing “naked hatred” for the United States? That would be no different than those people who call Michael Moore “anti-American” for expressing his anti-Bush sentiments. Am I misunderstanding you? I hope I am.<<
No, I’m saying those who feel that Michael Moore should be shot are showing naked hatred for him personally, that those stations refusing to play the DC’s songs in retaliation are showing naked hatred for the concept of free speech, and that those attempting to punish the lead singer of the DC’s for stating her opinion by organizing boycotts are just plain idiots.
PAD
>>You have the right to speak your mind – but we also reserve the right to boo at you if we don’t agree. Free Speech IS a two-way street.<<
Booing is not the same. Booing is the utilizing of the “Heckler’s Veto.” The attempt not to meet free speech with free speech, but instead the endeavor to stop the other person from speaking entirely.
Read books by Nat Hentoff on free speech. Strongly recommended.
PAD
You know, the more I think about it, Moore was not really voicing an opinion on the war, but really an anti-Bush view. Nothing new there, as I also read Stupid White Men. Still and all, I think Moore is simply against ANYTHING Bush does, even if it is good for the country. And while I think the Oscars is not the time nor place for how he delivered that message, you do gotta love the guy for doing it. No fear in him at all. I think he should be the new host for “jáçkášš”
Peter, I agree with you that if anyone truly believes Moore should be shot is expressing an unacceptable position. The radio stations removing the DC from their playlists are simply responding to their audiences. Could they show some backbone? Sure, but this is corporate radio we’re talking about. Accountants make the decisions. And while I don’t usually participate in organized boycotts myself (I like to keep them personal) I understand what those people are doing and why they’re doing it. I don’t share your view that they are “idiots”, but you’re entitled to your opinion.