Dems are howling over Arh-nuld’s calling them “Girlie Men,” saying it’s insulting to gays and women.
Aw, c’mon. I don’t recall anyone bìŧçhìņg about it when Hans and Franz coined the term in a recurring SNL sketch that was clearly lampooning Arnold. Instead of whining about being regularly made fun of, Arnold embraced the gag, even showing up during one sketch and lambasting them, saying they’d let themselves go and had become girlie men themselves (as they hung their heads in shame.)
If the Dems feel he was off-base in accusing them of pandering to special interest (which is where their ire should really be directed) then the response should be something along the lines of, “The Governor has been so busy pumping (clap) himself up that he’s full of hot air.” Not this namby-pamby, “Oh, he’s calling us names, he’s being mean to us” crap. Dem spokesmen are reacting like–well–girlie men.
PAD
• 
They should just hire Dana Carvey and Kevin Nealon to respond to Arnold in a skit, since they’d probably have a much better sense of humor about it than the spokesmen.
I agree. Both sides have been acting like a bunch of babies. Last week the Republicans erupted when, *gasp*, a comedian erupted into a crude rant! Unheard of! They labeled it a “hatefest”. The first stand-up performance I’d ever seen Whoopi Goldberg perform was an HBO special, during which she did an impression of Reagan anally violating air traffic controllers in pantomime. This was pretty tame in comparison 😉
The Dems, or the Republicans (I don’t care) should really take the high ground and stop over-reacting to this stuff. I mean, if Cheney can drop the F-bomb on the senate floor, then everything is pretty much fair game.
Phinn
Sometimes I’m embarrassed to be a Democrat
I know I would be…
PAD,
Since I normally disagree with your political views, I better speak up when I agree. Well said! Compared to the vicious things said from both sides about the other, this was not only mild, but actually appropriate for his point. The California Dem’s don’t have to agree, but to make such a big deal about what Arnold said almost makes his point.
I would disagree with Phinn’s comparison. While name calling is not exactly professional, it was a deliberate play on cultural and personal history. What happened last week was so ribald that it can’t even be repeated on the air. I am not saying it should be banned, censored, etc. But there is a clear difference in between the two events.
Jim in Iowa
This one is being blown infinitely out of proportion. Homosexuals (just the men?) thinking “girlie men” is an insult to them is like mášŧûrbáŧørš feeling targeted every time someone calls someone else a jerk. Homosexuals should worry more about gaining/keeping their right to marry than a tossed-out insult that’s barely tangentially related to them.
Do our politicians have to be entertainers? Is what is appropriate, and funny, for SNL, appropriate, and funny for a governor? And should a governor try to be funny?
If calling someone a girlie-man isn’t suggesting they’re homosexual – then what is it? And if it is, and it’s meant as an insult, then shouldn’t homosexuals in California complain that their governor apparently considers it an insult to suggest someone is homosexual?
These are just a couple questions that come to mind.
Of course, California elected Schwarzenegger. So assumedly, what they wanted was someone who had experience entertaining them.
If Arnold is going to call anyone a girly-man, shouldn’t he start in-house? See for yourself:
http://www.bettybowers.com/isbushgay.html
Well said, PAD.
For some reason I get a flashback to the great Newhart show–an episode where one character after another referred to Bob’s reputation for being “a hothead”. By the end of the show he was reduced to screaming “I am NOT a hothead!” which, of course, sort of proved the point.
As for Whoopie…she has every reight to say anything she wants but of course, when one chooses a spokesman for a product one usually prefers not to have one that makes a habit of pìššìņg øff half the potential customers. Seen any orange juice ads from Anita Bryant lately?
You cannot possibly be having trouble telling the difference between a comedy sketch and the undignified behavior of an elected official.
I think it just comes down to too many people taking crap way too seriously. It just makes me think that at least California is taking away some of the Florida-voting stigma.
See, I always thought it was spelled “Gurlee-Men”. (After Ahnuld’s pronunciation.)
If the spelling is, indeed, “Girlie Men”… Shouldn’t there be a dash in between the two words… As in “Girlie-Men”?
It was only a few weeks ago that someone on this blog– who had designated himself/herself Chief of the Dash Police– called Bill Mulligan and I on the carpet when we both referred to “Spider-Man” as “Spiderman”.
I remember Bill responded with a very witty comeback. I just shined it on… But now I must demand a recount… Especially before the “Girlie-Man” comic and subsequent movie adaptation is released!!
In the context of his speech the phrase clearly meant wimp. Any lawmaker trying to make an issue of this is shooting them selves in the foot. Because Arnold was not a career politician and we knew his past before he was elected, the public gives him lead way when it comes to being PC. Especially when it is a derivative of some thing that he did or was a parody of him. Nit picking a joke like this only turns off the swing voters to the people doing the nit picking. This is the kind of stuff that aggravates people to the point where they give up on voting.
Too, voters tend to like politicians who are blunt in their comments. And I certainly don’t think this comment crossed the line.
JW said: “I would disagree with Phinn’s comparison. While name calling is not exactly professional, it was a deliberate play on cultural and personal history. What happened last week was so ribald that it can’t even be repeated on the air.”
I think it’s interesting that the Dems are overreacting for a comment that a Republican made about them, but it’s not overreacting when the Republicans do the same thing. Yes, you can say that there are shades of gray between the two events, but as Elayne pointed out, Whoopie is a comedian, while Schwartzeneggar is supposed to be an elected official. On the one hand an entertainer is performing a skit, on the other hand the governor is pandering to his fans.
And this is hardly the first time this sort of bickering has occurred, even in recent weeks. Everyone needs to grow up, and people need to stop saying “well he did it first!” or “well they did it worse!”. Come on. Our elected officials are engaging in school-yard taunts.
And, in the governor’s defense, he clearly lifted the phrase from the SNL skit which had nothing to do with homosexuality; it referred to men who are wimps, which does not equate to being gay.
Phinn
I suppose I can see the logic that if something is meant as an insult (however mild and tongue-in-cheek) that someone is going to be insulted, somebody is going to be the butt of the joke and therefore a certain amount of comeback / fretting is technically fair enough. But as PAD says, let’s keep it in perspective.
I’m sure Arnie meant it in fun, though if someone made a crack about ‘Springtime for Arnie’ or ‘Steroids make the heart go ponder’ maybe he might fix his big smile for the public and fume about it afterwards. I once saw him at a press conference for The Sixth Day and when the director, answering a plot/semi-political point dared to not back down when Arnie made a pro-Republican comment. Arnie bantered for about ten seconds and smiled with all his pearlly whites. But it was clear he wasn’t impressed that someone had contradicted him in public.
But hey, this is entertainment and/or politics. If you don’t have a hard skin, don’t apply. I think the election countdown is just making both parties a little eager on their PR.
John M
As for Whoppi’s performance, and the demand of Bush’s campaign manager to release a video of the performance, here is the response from Kerry’s campaign manager:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=165-07132004
Posted by Elayne Riggs at July 19, 2004 01:25 PM
“You cannot possibly be having trouble telling the difference between a comedy sketch and the undignified behavior of an elected official.”
I can tell the difference between a comedy “sketch” on Saturday Night Live and comedy “commentary” at a democratic fundraiser. Whoppi was the later. That is her right, and I completely support it. As I support my right to say the content was outlandish and hateful.
Bottom line, I still believe that in the majority in our culture there is a common thread of decency. If you posted, in full, what Whoppi said (forget everyone else), versus what Arnold said, I suspect the majority would react against Whoppi but shrug their shoulders at Arnold.
Bottom line, I find all of this rather funny. I hope the democrats keep protesting. It just makes it funnier. (Can’t wait to hear what Rush says about it today!)
Jim in Iowa
I’m not sure why, but the following just popped into my head;
“Girlie-Man, Girlie-Man, special interest Girlie-Man
Can he take donations? He’s set up foundations!”
[to the classic Spider-Man theme. Anyone want to finish it off, go ahead, as I don’t have time]
So, basically, we’re ALL in agreement that the Democratic complainers are being yammerheads about this, right?
I mean, shouldn’t we appreciate a LITTLE bit of wit when a public figure makes comments ? (And I certainly thought there was a fair amount of wit displayed here….)
The worst thing about Whoopie’s comment was just how LAME it was. Using “Bush” as a pun on female genitalia? Oh my sides! Wow, that’s right up there with Jerry Falwell saying “Ellen Degenerate”, like he was the first to come up with that one all on his own. Jesus! What next, howl inducing plays on words involving Ðìçk Cheney, Peter O’Toole and William Kunstler?
There’s GOT to be a good BILLY BUSH joke somewhere… That guy is a WALKING JOKE for goodness sake!
Yes, both sides are showing extraordinary sensitivity to their own pain. The Republicans are astonished when anyone talks against them. The Democrats USED to be brawlers, able to take it as well as dish it out (usually against factions of their own party).
Are we in a grade-school debate here? Are we really expecting nuns to slap their steel rulers against people’s knuckles? Or, as I believe, is this election a decision about whether the United States and the world will have democracy again? If it’s that important, why don’t we have real arguments and let the insults fly freely?
Jay Lenno on the Tonight Show just asked senator John McCain about Arnold
On the other hand, when some people have the fairly recent memory of the murder of transgendered Gwen Araujo to deal with, that “girlie-men” comment seems a lot less harmless.
In the context of “SNL”, it was fairly humorous the first couple of times, but when the words are uttered by a *politician*, the humor tends to fail completely (unless, the politician had actually been either Dana Carvey or Kevin Nealon).
Then, too, Californians, especially those pro-family Republican types, have been so willing and eager to overlook much of Ah-nuld’s past behavior and antics (how exactly were those allegations of sexual harassment and pot-smoking dealt with?–oh, that’s right–no big deal–I just wonder how much better Jack Ryan would’ve fared if he’d run for a Senate seat from California than Illinois). I just hope that the real power behind the Terminator, Maria, takes some action of her own.
Posted by JosephW at July 20, 2004 01:38 AM
“but when the words are uttered by a *politician*, the humor tends to fail completely (unless, the politician had actually been either Dana Carvey or Kevin Nealon)”
Or if that politician were the selfsame person that was being parodied by Carvey and Nealon. So you mean to tell me that when a political can embrace his own caricature (or caricatures in the case of SNL), it’s not OK? I’m sorry, but as has been stated before, “Girlie-man” != homosexual in this context. I think this is where the problem lies – the statement being made is taken out of context ON PURPOSE. You, me and the Dems know dámņ well what that phrase means in that context, and gay-bashing or homophobia are not a part of that.
This is what is making the Democratic leaders (and anyone trying to support them in these comments) look so doggone stupid – not the fact that they’re trying to defend one of their biggest special interest groups – which is what they should be doing, but because every man, womand, and child over the age of 12 (OK 15 for those that couldn’t watch SNL until they were 13 🙂 ) understands the context of that statement as it relates to the SNL sketches.
I’m not real happy with the ‘Pubs either on the Whoopie thing – ‘Pub leaders need to be quiet unless Kerry’s camp releases the footage of the benefit – which it appears they don’t plan to do anytime soon – otherwise, we can’t judge for ourselves whether or not Whoopie’s remarks are all that offensive or all that different from what comedians have said about the opposite party the whole last 50 years or so. However, we can’t blame Slim-Fast for kicking her to the curb – they got lots of complaints and lots of calls to boycott their product unless Whoopie was canned. If I run a business and a significant percentage of my customer base refuses to have anything to do with my product unless I get rid of my spokesperson, there’s no question – the spokesperson is gone. I can troll the checkout desk of the Betty Ford clinic and find someone famous that’ll pitch my weight-loss product for a song, but I can’t easily replace the customers that I would lose if I kept the spokesperson.
This whole argument is typical of the problems that liberals face every day. On the one side of the issue, you’ve got reasonable, thinking people who see that the democrats are overreacting in this case, but also recognize that the same behavior is exhibited again and again on both sides and that it doesn’t help anyone for it to continue.
On the other side of the issue you’ve got the automotons, who, for some reason, toe the party line with such unquestioning, mind numbing obediance that it’s painful just to read. To see someone profess a point in one paragraph, and then completely reverse their position in the next simply because the actors have switch roles is ridiculous, but unfortunately, it’s standard operating procedure.
Take, for example, the organized effort on the right to attack President Clinton for his entire 8 year run in office. You’ll remember, of course, that this culminated in his impeachment because he didn’t tell the truth when he was asked inappropriately personal questions about his extramarital activites that had no bearing whatsoever on the investigation at hand; you may recall that the independent council was supposed to be uncovering the truth behind real estate scandals.
Then, as soon as the office changes hands and parties it suddenly becomes the most sacred position in all of Christendom; questioning the president is not only an action of the worst type of anti-American tripe, but it’s near blasphemous! The same party that called for Clinton to air his personal, private, dirty laundry to the nation claims that the current administration doesn’t need to reveal details about public policy decisions, despite the fact that we have laws (such as the Freedom of Information Act) that require them to do so.
Which is why we liberals are often so frustrated. We seem to have the ability to step back and reasonably look at the situation. We can see the flaws in our chosen leaders, but they tend to make as many good deicisions as they do bad ones. The other side, though, they just goose step in line behind whatever the rhetoric of the day is, even if it’s the exact opposite of what they were preaching a year ago, or even a week ago.
It’s downright depressing.
Phinn
Sorry for the spelling/grammatical errors in my posts. Whenever I try to preview my posts so that I can proof read them, I lose the post! I hope they get that fixed soon 😉
“Which is why we liberals are often so frustrated. We seem to have the ability to step back and reasonably look at the situation. We can see the flaws in our chosen leaders, but they tend to make as ma”Which is why we liberals are often so frustrated. We seem to have the ability to step back and reasonably look at the situation. We can see the flaws in our chosen leaders, but they tend to make as many good deicisions as they do bad ones. The other side, though, they just goose step in line behind whatever the rhetoric of the day is, even if it’s the exact opposite of what they were preaching a year ago, or even a week ago.”
Question your assumptions.
To demonstrate the falsity of your self indulgent analysis one need only find A)-some kool-aid drinking Clinton fans who merrily changed their position to whatever the president needed on a given day or B0- some conservatives who disagree with Bush on major policy issues.
Neither would be difficult but I have to head off to the waterpark with the kids. I could offer myself as an example of the latter but if you are seeking someone a bit higher on the foodchain head off to Andrewsullivan.com.
Or wallow in the comforting illusion.
“Sometimes I’m embarrassed to be a Democrat
I know I would be…”
As if being James Tichy isn’t enough to be embarrassed about already…
PAD
Notice that I said “liberals” and not “Democrats”. There is a difference. Just like there really is a difference between “conservative” and “Republican”.
Once upon a time Conservatives stood for states’ rights and would stand against Constitutional Amendments enforcing the will of the government. Conservatives stood for fiscal responsibility, not massive tax cuts in a time of war. Conservatives stood for small government, not creating new departments with tens of thousands of employees at every turn.
So the terms are used loosely, and carelessly, often as insults slung from one side to the other. Unfortunately, the face of the right wing comes in the form of talking-point spouting liars like Rush, Hannity, Coulter, O’Reily, et al.
I never said that there weren’t dems that blindly toe the party line; of course there are. What I did say is that we on the left can see the flaws in our leaders (go back and re-read the post; it’s in there!) and that is exactly one of them.
What you did, though, was prove my point. You didn’t agree that the behavior is reprehensible, you just took the typical tactic of “well, they do it, too!” which is exactly the sort of schoolyard behavior that we’ve been decrying here.
Phinn
So, how do folks feel about Linda Ronstadt’s getting kicked out of a casino for dedicating a song to Michael Moore?
Critter, it’s rather sad when a politician “embraces” a caricature of oneself to make a “political point”.
I believe that Carvey and Nealon’s little sketch went past funny into incredibly pathetic the second time they decided to do “Hans and Franz” (that may be only my opinion, but no matter) and it just makes Arnold look even more pathetic when he feels a need to resurrect a seriously unfunny sketch to make some political points.
I’m sorry, but the sketch did equate wimpiness with homosexuality. If anyone needs a quick reminder of some other examples of homosexuality=effiminacy: “nelly”, “sissy”, “pansy”, and “nancy”. Those terms, especially “sissy” (and its less-often heard variation “sissy-boy”), were all used as derogatory terms for gays (and those perceived as gay) and implied that gay men were no better than women.
Again, when the state of California not so long ago witnessed the tale of a brutally murdered transgendered individual, it behooves all politicians to mind what they say.
Again, when the state of California not so long ago witnessed the tale of a brutally murdered transgendered individual, it behooves all politicians to mind what they say.
Point taken, particularly since there was a mistrial declared; if I recall correctly, much of the jury was buying into the “I was so shocked she was a he that I killed him” emotional defense.
I’m kinda torn on the whole “girly-men” issue, in several ways.
First — one of the reasons he won the recall election is that he kept saying he’d be able to work in a bipartisan fashion. Now that he’s hitting a roadblock, he’s immediately saying in effect “screw compromise, I’m going to just browbeat you until I get what I want.” That’s not really how I was hoping he’d do business. (No, I didn’t vote for him last fall, but I’ll certainly say he’s not been the disaster I was fearing at all.)
Second — I do think there’s a difference between having a comedian use the “girly-man” phrase and having a politician use it as an actual pre-planned goad. (Some of this might depend on the tone of voice he had when using it, and I don’t have that information.) Times have changed a bit since Hans and Franz, as others have mentioned.
Is it worth the huge dust-up this appears to be turning into? Certainly no — but I think a quick “in a day and age where transgendered youths can be killed and their killers allowed to walk freely, for the governor to use this kind of phrasing is unfortunate” would’ve gotten the point across.
Now, if you REALLY wanna get the governor angry, start asking him about those meetings he had with Ken Lay in 2001…
I know I would be…
Okay, who had Tichy at 11:02 AM in the pool? 🙂
So, how do folks feel about Linda Ronstadt’s getting kicked out of a casino for dedicating a song to Michael Moore?
Glad you brought this one up, Roger — you beat me to it.
For those who hadn’t heard about this — Linda Ronstadt was singing at the Aladdin (on the Vegas strip), and dedicated the song “Desperado” to Moore, saying that she thought F9/11 was a great film and worth seeing. (She has been doing this every night of her tour the last few weeks, so it’s not like this should’ve been a huge surprise.)
Many patrons threw drinks at her, tore down posters, and all but stormed the box office demanding their money back.
The casino fired her and ejected her from the hotel — they didn’t even let her pack, saying they’d send her belongings along later.
(No word on whether the people who threw drinks at her were in fact arrested on assault charges, though I assume not.)
As Roger asked — any thoughts? I imagine people can guess mine, but I’d rather let others go first after the news summary.
TWL
Roger Tang:
“So, how do folks feel about Linda Ronstadt’s getting kicked out of a casino for dedicating a song to Michael Moore?”
Read the whole story here…
http://www.lasvegassun.com/
Sounds to me like the management made a business decision. A large number of paying audience members were unhappy with the quality of the show and the political slant thrown in. Management decided it wanted to hire a performer, not an activist.
Her rights weren’t violated. I assume she was paid for the performance, and she got to say what she wanted to say. Sounds like she came out ahead of the management of the hotel.
Since someone mentioned that “the face of the right wing comes in the form of talking-point spouting liars like Rush, Hannity, Coulter, O’Reily, et al.”, here is what one of them said about this whole issue:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071904/content/truth_detector.guest.html
I freely admit I think he makes a lot of sense! But I guess I am just a mind-numbed robot who can’t think for myself or be critical of Bush or Arnold. Excuse me while I go drink some Kool-Aide.
Jim in Iowa
RE: Girlie Man = Gay
I still disagree here. Just because a term is used in regards to a gay man, doesn’t mean it equates to being gay. I also object to the phrase “…were all used as derogatory terms for gays (and those perceived as gay) and implied that gay men were no better than women.”, which itself implies that any man (gay or not) should be perceived as being better than a woman.
Heh. I know that’s not what you mean, but it’s easy to twist the intent of things that people say and give them an attitude that wasn’t really meant.
Was Arnold accusing the Dems of being a bunch of closet homosexuals? Does anyone here really believe that? Really? Come on. Is it possible to accuse someone of being a sissy and a wimp without accusing them of same-sex love? Of course it is! When people call George W and Ðìçk Cheney “chickenhawks” for touting war even though they themselves avoided combat I don’t think that their sexuality is being questioned. Hëll, Arnold wasn’t even accusing them of being physically wimpy; he was attacking their courage to stand up and do their duty; whether or not his attacks were warranted is another matter.
The Dems are being a bunch of babies over this, but every time anyone says “boo” about the president they are accused of being anti-American hate mongers. Heck, Coulter wrote a book about how anyone that questions the actions of the administration is committing treason! Both sides need to take a chill pill.
Phinn
Sounds to me like the management made a business decision.
Sounds like, yet again, we’re allowing our political discourse to become polarized beyond all reason.
Sounds more like an excuse than a business decision.
Jeff:
Sounds to me like the management made a business decision. A large number of paying audience members were unhappy with the quality of the show and the political slant thrown in. Management decided it wanted to hire a performer, not an activist.
The management is perfectly within its rights to make a business decision (modulo whatever the contract between them said, which I’d be interested to know).
However, what you’re neglecting to mention is that the audience didn’t just get annoyed, but abusive. Are you fine with them vandalizing the casino because they were pìššëd øff at a two-sentence dedication?
(I also think that ejecting her bodily from the entire hotel is a gigantic overreaction. Let her go, fine. Toss her out on her ear as though she’d set a patron on fire … um, no.)
I don’t think anyone’s saying her rights were violated per se, so feel free to drop that straw man off at the front desk.
TWL
RE: Linda Ronstadt
I have had discussions similar to this many, many times. I disagree with Michael Moore when he equates this with a First Amendment issue. It is clearly not. The government did not censor her. She has no more right to start spouting political rhetoric during a private performance on private property than an actor would to break into a pro-Kerry rant in the middle of filming a movie.
I do think that management over-reacted something fierce, though. The performance was all but over (this was an encore) and she was not scheduled for another show. I wouldn’t be surprised if the terms of her contract didn’t include a room to spend the night in, so it is possible that they did over step their bounds when they refused to let her return to her room and pack her belongings.
She has no more right to start spouting political rhetoric during a private performance on private property
Sure she does. The management certainly has the right in return to say “um, that’s not what we hired you for”, of course.
Perhaps “right” is not the word you meant?
TWL
RE: “…here is what [Rush] said about this whole issue…”
Yes, and here is what Rush said about executing captured Iraqui insurgents without due process: “Good. Hubba-hubba.”
He also said that Abu Gharib was no worse than “a fraternity prank” and that soldiers were justified because they were “just letting off some steam.”
He frequently refers to women’s rights activists as “feminazis”. He has accused the Clintons of murder on the air. He recently claimed that 80% of journalists claim to be liberal when the figures from the poll he cited were actually closer to 36%. He spent the entire 8 years of Clinton’s presidency bashing the man for 3 hours a day, and today claims that anyone who does the same to Bush is anti-American.
Bill O’Reilly, another favorite of mine, once said that when someone goes on the air for 3 hours a day, it’s easy to find something that they say that can be debunked; it’s impossible to get all of your facts straight during a 3 hour live talk show. Heck, even Al Franken, who prides himself on being the honest alternative to the right wing rant machine, spends a few minutes each day issuing corrections to mistakes and misrepresentations made on previous shows.
With that in mind I’d like to say that, if Rush’s opinions on this topic are rational, well, when you spend 3 hours a day on the radio doing a live talk show it’s hard to get EVERYTHING utterly wrong…
Phinn
“Perhaps “right” is not the word you meant?”
No, it’s exactly what I meant. The first amendment places specific limitations on the freedoms of expression. Libel and slander laws, for example, put strict limitations on the extent to which you can express an unfabricated opinion. Furthermore, it’s illegal to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and one could with a bit of effort (considering the near-riot the ensued) state that her actions almost equated with doing this; inciting a riot is a criminal offense.
Do I really believe that was her intent? No.
The owners of a private establishment have every right to establish rules governing the behavior of people on their property; I said before and I still believe that her rights were in no way violated with the possible exception of a breach of contract in regards to her hotel room.
I also believe that the owner of the club is a pompous ášš who overstepped his bounds, and the bounds of good taste. I sincerely hope (though I doubt it will happen) that other entertainers boycott his club.
Tim:
“However, what you’re neglecting to mention is that the audience didn’t just get annoyed, but abusive. Are you fine with them vandalizing the casino because they were pìššëd øff at a two-sentence dedication?”
That wasn’t in Roger Tang’s original question, about Linda Ronstadt, so I didn’t mention that part.
As for the casino patrons. They were being childish and immature. Just leaving the show would have been more than enough to express displeasure. Vandalism was not necessary.
Re: Governor Arnold
I agree with PAD. Every time I think that Democrats are progressing forward with ideas, they take giant leaps backward. To my ears, it sounded like he was making a joke, making light about a budget stalemate. I think there’s entirely too much feigned sensitivity going on with the Democrats who are decrying it, just as there was too much feigned sensitivity about Cheney’s use of an expletive on the Senate floor or Whoopi Goldberg’s “hatefest” performance at a Kerry fundraiser. Really…there aren’t any real issues to cover and questions to ask? We really want to preoccupy ourselves with the trivial political tug-of-war when there are substantive issues at stake in this election? That’s what frustrates me.
Re: Linda Ronstadt
Can I ask a sincere question? At what point did we as a society decide that if we don’t agree with an idea, we should violently oppose it? At what point did we decide that if we disagree with someone, we should do everything possible to silence them? If the Aladdin Hotel wanted to terminate her contract, that’s fine. I’ll agree, that’s business. I can excuse the Hotel’s conduct. And if a group of people decide to file out of a concert because they don’t like the idea expressed, that’s fine with me, too. But to throw glasses, storm the box office, vandalize, and demand your money back from a performance 95% of which you attended? From what I’ve gathered, the song she dedicated to Moore was an encore. Encores are essentially gifts given by a performer to an audience, not planned ahead of time and not part of the normal show that these people paid for. She had apparently been using her encores to express her opinions nationwide, but you know, if she was performing in accordance with her contract in performing the main concert, they should not have fired her for her comments in an encore. Can they? Yes.
My take is that the Aladdin can do whatever they choose. But at what point did we decide that if we don’t agree with a performer, we should rebel violently? I don’t agree with many of comic book writer Chuck Dixon’s views. But I like his writing. I don’t agree with some of Dennis Miller’s views. But I think he’s occasionally brilliant. At bottom, Michael Moore and Linda Ronstadt are expressing opinions, and opinions are nothing more than ideas. Agree or disagree…I have no problem with that. But is it too much to expect a little civility? Can ideas be so offensive that they warrant such unseemly behavior on the part of the audience?
That’s the one rule that I always impose upon myself when I try to post at blogs and message boards: Be respectful. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and there’s a reasonable way to express that opinion. Perhaps Linda Ronstadt’s choice of forum was a bad one, and the Hotel exercised its right to terminate her contract. That certainly doesn’t excuse the conduct of the audience members.
Perhaps “right” is not the word you meant?
No, it’s exactly what I meant. The first amendment places specific limitations on the freedoms of expression.
Yes, and “because it’ll piss people off” isn’t one of those limitations.
I think the management of the Aladdin would be perfectly entitled to state in its contract that “thou shalt not make political observations on stage” and that it’d be enforceable … but absent that, she absolutely had the right to make the statements she did as part of her performance.
Just because it’s a private venue doesn’t mean you can get draconian retroactively.
Furthermore, it’s illegal to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and one could with a bit of effort (considering the near-riot the ensued) state that her actions almost equated with doing this; inciting a riot is a criminal offense.
You’re not serious. A two-sentence endorsement of a filmmaker is an incitement to riot? Any lawyer making that claim would be laughed out of court on that one (unless Joe McCarthy was the judge, anyway).
I realize this is just a hypothetical legal argument on your part, but I think it’s a completely absurd one. If her actions equate to incitement to riot, what about the people who actually did get borderline violent?
The owners of a private establishment have every right to establish rules governing the behavior of people on their property; I said before and I still believe that her rights were in no way violated with the possible exception of a breach of contract in regards to her hotel room.
And I have not disagreed with that.
I also believe that the owner of the club is a pompous ášš who overstepped his bounds, and the bounds of good taste. I sincerely hope (though I doubt it will happen) that other entertainers boycott his club.
We can but hope. He’s sure as hëll lost my business permanently, but that’s not much of a hit.
TWL
“You’re not serious. A two-sentence endorsement of a filmmaker is an incitement to riot?”
No, I absolutely am not, which is why I stated that fact in the very next line (which you chose to omit). Nor do I expect anyone to make that claim.
Also, the First Amendment very specifically with government restrictions of expression. What we have here is a person in a private business making statements during a private show, for which she was contracted. Esentially she was an employee engaging in behavior that her employer found distasteful. The First Amendment provides no protection against this. Now, if she were arrested, or her opinions censored, then she would have a First Amendment case (well, for now anyway. I’m sure the administration is hard at work on removing those limitations on their power).
Her rights were clearly not violated, and only Moore is claiming that they were. There are no First Amendment protections in this case. Or, to use your own argument, there is nothing that says “Thou shalt allow people to express their opinions freely and without recourse on your property, and there ain’t a dámņëd thing thou can do about it.”
We’re really arguing on a symantic point; I think we agree on this issue at hand in that rights were not violated, but the hotel manager was a dìçk. Let’s stop taking valuable space by pressing the point further.
Phinn
It’s like in the 200 elections — it was just humilating to watch Democratic spokepeople get up and say “it’s unfair because our supporters are too dumb to figure out a simple ballot!” I think the disenfranchisement arguement has a lot more heft.
Speaking of dumb. It was, of course, the 2000 elections.
Phinn,
Fair enough. I agree we’re basically arguing semantics.
(One minor point: the line I omitted was you saying you didn’t think that was Ronstadt’s intent, not that the legal argument was a silly one. I think the two claims are somewhat different. Not a big deal — just wanted to let you know that I was omitting it because I didn’t think it was relevant, not out of dishonesty.)
TWL