For those who were wondering what sort of idiot would try to fob blame for the Foley scandal over to the Democrats, wonder no more. From the AOL news feed:
“Hastert told the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday night that he has no thoughts of resigning. He blamed ABC News, which broke the Foley e-mail story, and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal.”
PAD
• 
Also, and for what it’s worth (not much, but just to pick nits…), Studds’ affair took place ten years before the scandal broke, when he was 36. A 19-year age difference is still creepy…but legal, and I know at least two married couples 18 years and 16 years apart in age.
Doubtlessly then the folks outraged that Republicans let several years lapse before are absolutely LIVID that the Democrats let a full decade go by!
Hmmm, I’d always thought that Studds back turning was a very deliberate act. Wishj I could find an interview with him from that time. It’s funny how hard it is to find interviews and info on events and people in the pre-internet era. Future historians will be able to reconstruct everything that happens tomorrow from looking at blogs and easy to find online. It’s nice to have things so easy to check now.
Bill Mulligan –
If one wishes to compare Crane and Studds, that’s fine by me.
Well, you’re usually a voice of reason, Bill.
I was just pointing that out for Jim’s benefit, since so many on the right are focused upon Studds, but ignore Crane.
And yes, did demand that Gingrich, something else you’d think right-wingers would mention more often.
if anyone has a breakdown of the votes by Party I’d like to know them
I haven’t been able to find anything. The only thing I’ve found so far is that the Ethic Committee at the time recommended a reprimand, but the full House voted for censure of the two instead.
I did find a comment on a blog which eventually lead me to this site, where if you scroll down you can find the entries for the censure votes on both Studds and Crane: 421-3.
Crane was booted out by the voters at the first opportunity. Studds was returned 5 more times.
*shrug* That’s an issue to take up with voters. More people voted for Bush in ’04 than in ’02. You care to explain that one to me? 😉
But, I’d be interesting to see how the vote went for Crane and Studds in that next election.
And just for the sake of further argument…
Studds was single, Crane was married with kids.
A Time Magazine article, linked from Wikipedia, had this quote at the very end:
(Crane’s) press secretary, William Mencarow, suggested the entire matter was no big deal. “If we required the resignation of all Congressmen who slept with young ladies,” he said, “we wouldn’t have a Congress.” He later apologized for the observation.
Ouch.
And yes, did demand that Gingrich
Wow, that was butchered.
Should’ve been: “Gingrich did demand that (their explusion)”.
One thing to remember:
Politics is like driving.
To go backward, put it in R.
To go forward, put it in D.
More people voted for Bush in ’04 than in ’02. You care to explain that one to me?
Diebold.
“Politics is like driving.
To go backward, put it in R.
To go forward, put it in D.”
I tend to see it more as one car with two engines, one in R and one in D, so that it doesn’t go anywhere.
“”Politics is like driving.
To go backward, put it in R.
To go forward, put it in D.”
I tend to see it more as one car with two engines, one in R and one in D, so that it doesn’t go anywhere.”
God forbid either ever get total control, the levels of R in the government are disasterous enough the couple of years….
Yeah but most people get killed while in D.
Annnnnnd we’ve now beaten that metaphore to death. Look at the little guy twitching.
It’s like when noted thinker Julia Roberts said “you’ll find ‘Republican’ in the dictionary between ‘Reptile’ and ‘Repugnant’.” So then some Republicans wasted time coming up with offensive words found in the D section to sandwich the word “Democrat”. Winston Churchill spins in his grave at how sad political insults have sunk.
Just remember, folks, Congress is the opposite of progress.
Annnnnnd we’ve now beaten that metaphore to death. Look at the little guy twitching.
Sorry, couldn’t resist getting in one more cheap shot at the little bûggër. 🙂
[quote]Yeah but most people get killed while in D.[/quote]
I don’t care if it’s dead, I’m gonna whale on it some more: you have a better view when you’re in D and the lousy field of vision R affords results in drivers often backing into people with their cars. Plus the mirrors give a distorted view of things; objects are closer than they appear, right? There, now this methaphor will need a closed casket funeral.
Doubtlessly then the folks outraged that Republicans let several years lapse before are absolutely LIVID that the Democrats let a full decade go by!
True. Provided, of course, that you have some evidence that Democrats KNEW about Studds that far back…?
But, since pages were apparently warning each other about Foley as far back as 1995, (ELEVEN years), it looks like Foley is still the champ.
My complaint is that the relevant leadership didn’t do its job. Complaining about how the Rs did this and the Ds did that is completely missing the point.
David,
Used to be a reader now am turned off. Sorry, you wrote great stuff but I cannot get around your blog here. I actually wish I never found it. Worst of all is the “Freedom Clock”, if you truly were not free then that clock and your views would have been removed from the interent a long time ago and you and those with you locked up and put from the light of day. But here you are still writting and posting and making appearances so shouldn’t that “Freedom Clock” already be at zero. So continue carrying your soup board with The End is Here. While I do not agree with you I support your right to voice your opinion and that is what America is all about. It just makes me sad that it is people like you that will destroy this country.
good luck
It just makes me sad that it is people like you that will destroy this country.
And there you have it, folks: using your right to freedom of speech is destroying our country.
Posted by: Bryans
David,
Used to be a reader now am turned off. Sorry, you wrote great stuff but I cannot get around your blog here. I actually wish I never found it. Worst of all is the “Freedom Clock”, if you truly were not free then that clock and your views would have been removed from the interent a long time ago and you and those with you locked up and put from the light of day.
Moron,
Are you familiar with the little cliche that begins “When they came for the Jews…”?
They’ve passed their National “Real ID” Act, and it probably won’t be long before they appropriate funds for dialog coaching for every cop, state trooper and security guard in the proper way to say “Your papers, please, fraulein”, as required by the Act…
(Well, that might be a slight exaggeration)
If the Freedom Clock turns out to be inaccurate, and the Republicans retain control, i rather more than half expect to see internal passports before the end of the next ruling junta in Washington DC … oops, i mean “Republican Administration”.
As to the “Freedom Clock” (and, yes. it’s on my blog and my website, as well) – do you happen to remember Fatso opening his radio programs every day till even dittoheads must have gotten tired of the joke with “America Held Hostage – Day X of the Clinton Insurgency”?
And it makes me sad that people don’t know the difference between Peter David and David Peters.
Mike,
Limbaugh did not open every show with that, he opened every HOUR with it. I think that he often opened with it when he came back from commercial. At least the “American held hostage” bit. I don’t remember the “Clinton Insurgancy” bit being said.
Bryans,
Sorry to hear that you can’t get around Mr. David’s political views. It’s a shame that your disagreement with his views appears to interfere with your ability to enjoy his work. As to the “Freedom Clock”…regardless of your view of how free we are right now, we’ll be free of President Bush on January 20, 2009. Once a President leaves office, his direct political career is effectively over and he can only excert influence very indirctly.
Mr. David dislikes President Bush enough to have a countdown to when he’s gone. Mr. David has strong opinions about various political matters and posts them on his own blog. So what? One thing that I got from your post was that his political views were a surprise to you. I interpret this to mean that he’s a good enough writer to keep his own views from coloring what he writes and for each character to have their own views distinct from his. So I’d think that his political views shouldn’t detract from your enjoyment of his works. I’m sorry to see that it is otherwise.
It just makes me sad that it is people like you that will destroy this country.
So you would be happier if some other sort of people were to destroy the country?
Perhaps a group of people who claim to be devoted to personal freedom, smaller government, and lower taxes, while simultaneously clamping down on freedoms, adding massive bureaucracy, and going on a spending spree that would make FDR blanch?
Peter, I am dismayed to read that you — and people like you — are going to destroy this country. That is unnecessary and downright impolite.
I wouldn’t have believed such a thing of you, but you cannot find a more unimpeachable source than some random guy who comes to your blog to blast you, now, can you?
By the way, may I ask who are the people “like you” who are going to destroy this country, by the way? Other liberals? Fellow authors? Really pìššëd-off bowlers? I mean, if you’re going to destroy us all anyway, you might as well spill the beans.
Surely, someone who understands the concept of hyperbole enough to claim that Peter is destroying the country should be able to understand something as basic as the Freedom Clock.
I do find “soup board” to be a fascinating construction, however…
I’m going with Really pìššëd Øff Bowlers. Look at Lee Harvey Oswald or, going back a bit, Trotsky. They have that Really Pìššëd Øff Bowlers look.
If they were to add the physical prowess of the Civil War Reenactors and the cunning of the State Fair Carnies’s, well, you can kiss our way of life goodbye…
BRYANS:
Man, I wish this “Bryans” left an e-mail address so I could write him personally. I think I might actually be able to get through to a conservative here…then again, I may simply be delusional again. But, Bryans, if you are reading this, please pay attention.
Bush’s crowning “achievement”, the Iraq War, came to pass because of “ends justify the means” thinking. The end of having a “free and democratic” Iraq where nobody had to fear a dictator justified the means of attacking Iraq without provocation, justified the means of killing a lot of civilians who had nothing to do with terrorism or Saddam’s regime, justified the imprisonment of all Iraqis who appeared suspicious, because in the end the free Iraq would be worth it.
Now if you are at all familiar with comics, you will know that few real heroes believe the ends justify the means. Spider-Man doesn’t believe that. Captain America doesn’t believe it. The X-Men, at least during the first Claremont run on the series, didn’t believe it. There are exceptions like the Punisher and, to a lesser extent, the Hulk, but mostly what has separated the heroes from the villains has been the belief that the means used to achieve your goals are just as important as the ends.
From the beginning, my opposition to the Iraq war was because the U.S. was acting like “bad guys.” Only bad guys, I believe, fire the first shots in a war. Only bad guys, I believe, imprison people without evidence or access to a lawyer or a fair trial. Only bad guys, I believe, resort to torture.
As so many heroes in comic books have stated in the past, I believe that if the U.S. uses questionable methods, even for the most noble of reasons, it becomes as bad as every other dictatorial regime it has opposed in the past. It’s splitting hairs to say that the U.S. under Bush still isn’t as bad as Russia under Stalin–neither situation is acceptable, and both Stalin and Bush are, in my view, “bad guys.”
So when a guy like Peter David takes a public stand against Bush, I am with him 100% and I think it’s unfortunate that you seem to have viewed all the stories you’ve read in comics over the years as nothing more than slugfests and learned nothing about ethics from them.
Even Wolverine, who could be included among those heroes who use questionable means toward desirable ends, stopped Rachel Summers from killing the Black Queen in cold blood. In his view, the X-Men were supposed to stand for something better than that, and such an act by one of them was unacceptable. Even if it meant the Black Queen would go on killing innocent people. If Wolvie can understand that, why can’t you?
“I support your right to voice your opinion and that is what America is all about.”
Except you really don’t. Because if you did, then you could continue to read and enjoy and support my work–which, as was pointed out, is so even-handed that you didn’t perceive any political leanings from reading it. Instead you feel the need to be punitive for my differing opinions by no longer supporting my creative endeavors.
It drives me nuts when people speak of how much they support free expression and love their country, while then taking actions that denote the exact opposite…and never, ever, ever acknowledge the inherent hypocrisy.
PAD
“So continue carrying your soup board with The End is Here”
Oh…and it’s called a sandwich board, because it rests on the carrier’s front and back and thus makes him look like a sandwich.
A soup board. Jeez.
PAD
“I’m going with Really pìššëd Øff Bowlers. Look at Lee Harvey Oswald or, going back a bit, Trotsky. They have that Really Pìššëd Øff Bowlers look.”
That’s probably it. We’ve got special shoes that enable us to slide quickly, thus eluding capture. We’ve got reasonably good aim, and we’re accustomed to hefting blunt objects of fifteen to sixteen pounds. We’re kingpins, we come out of the gutters, live in the alleys and you never know where we’ll strike next. No one will be spared.
Really Pìššëd Øff Bowlers: Knocking the pins out from under the United States.
PAD
Why the big deal about “Bryans”? Based on his grammar, word choice, and sentence structure, I’m guessing he’s about ten years old. He’s a dolt who actually thinks he’s punished PAD by posting on his blog.
Posted by: Den at October 11, 2006 11:36 AM
Why the big deal about “Bryans”?
No big deal. But how could anyone expect me to pass up on an opportunity to make a joke?
Posted by Peter David at October 11, 2006 09:51 AM
Really Pìššëd Øff Bowlers: Knocking the pins out from under the United States.
Priceless!
Is soup-boarding like water-boarding, only with really hot chicken noodle?
But remember — spending money (or not) is another form of freedom of speech, even if it’s deemed a punitive response. Don’t like what the Dixie Chicks say? Not buying their albums — even if you did before — is a valid form of freedom of expression. Not that boycotts work all that often…
“Don’t like what the Dixie Chicks say? Not buying their albums — even if you did before — is a valid form of freedom of expression…”
No. It’s not.
We’re not talking about people refusing to buy tuna fish because dolphins are getting snagged in the nets. We’re talking about a mentality that says, “I don’t like what you’re saying; I’ll get you for that.” Punishment is not free expression. It’s retaliation. If a child says something a parent disapproves of and the parent slaps the child, are the two actions equal? No.
If someone says, “I am against freedom of expression and people saying things I don’t like to hear, and I’m going to punish them for it,” I can respect that. At least it’s honest. The concept of, “I’m for freedom of expression, and thus will retaliate against someone who says something I don’t like by trying to hurt them financially”…it’s just bûllšhìŧ.
PAD
To play devil’s advocate here, I have two words: Mel Gibson.
Although admittedly, I’m not boycotting his movies because I disagree with his political views so much as I am because I think he’s a pompous jerk. In any case, it’s not because I’m out to punish Mel for his action so much as I do not enjoy his work in light of his recent actions. But then again, Peter hasn’t written any blatantly anti-something novels or comics.
That’s silly. The alternative is “I really don’t like what they say, but I have to keep buying their albums because I don’t want to punish them for saying it.” Sometimes the consequence of free speech that others don’t like is free speech that you don’t like in return. Both sides have their turn in the whole free speech conversation, and sometimes, somebody loses.
No, the alternative is, “I’m going to buy/watch/patronize on the merits of the work and not to punish political views that I disagree with.”
Let me ask this: How many would refuse to hire a plumber or mechanic if you found out they had political views that differed from yours? So why should writers be singled out?
“”Don’t like what the Dixie Chicks say? Not buying their albums — even if you did before — is a valid form of freedom of expression…”
No. It’s not.”
Yes. Yes it is.
Supporting someone’s right to free speech doesn’t mean supporting what they say. Just because you want them to be legally allowed to do something doesn’t mean you can’t go against the specific things they say. Don’t like Bill O’Rielly? Don’t buy his book. Hate the opinions of the Dixie Chicks or Toby Keith so much that you can’t help but think about them when you hear their music? Don’t buy their albums.
It’s not remotely inconsistent to say that someone should be legally allowed to have an opinion, but you don’t want to financially support that person.
“So why should writers be singled out?”
Or anybody else for that matter. I find the hypocrisy on the right to be far greater then the hypocrisy on the left here. I know far more people on the right then on the left who care more about the political views of an entertainer then they do the level of entertainment they themselves get from the entertainer’s work.
“To play devil’s advocate here, I have two words: Mel Gibson.”
Not a great pick for the two words. Passion got him some flack for what was in the movie itself. Most people I know who thought that Passion was offensive crap still have most of Mel’s other movies in their collections and quite a few think that his next film looks pretty cool. The Chicks got trashed because of an idea that they expressed, whle it was a concert, outside of their actual work. It was not in one of their sangs. Then the people who claimed that the Chicks trashed America (as if Bush IS America) demanded that all Chicks’ songs be banned from radio airplay and got rid of their collections of chicks’ stuff.
There’s also a big dif in the extreme reactions of people who didn’t like Mel’s Passion and people who didn’t like the Dixie Chicks talking about Bush. People weren’t content with just getting rid of their chicks’ stuff. Oh, no. I saw lots of places where people or radio stations were holding events where you could bring you chicks stuff on down and join in with the mindless masses by throwing it in the fire, watch it get crushed, etc. I didn’t see any groups setting up mass destruction centers for Mel’s films.
Nah, the two don’t match up in the least.
“Don’t like Bill O’Rielly? Don’t buy his book.”
Not even close.
Not liking O’Rielly for his political views and not buying his book filled with the same political views you don’t like him for isn’t even remotely close to the Chicks’ situation. The Chicks weren’t putting out albums trashing Bush or conservatives prior to their blowout with their fans. Not even close.
Or anybody else for that matter. I find the hypocrisy on the right to be far greater then the hypocrisy on the left here. I know far more people on the right then on the left who care more about the political views of an entertainer then they do the level of entertainment they themselves get from the entertainer’s work.
Yet it’s the entertainers on the right who are more afraid of losing their jobs if they “come out” as it were. Even Bill Maher, no right-wing tool he, (a tool, yes) has said it’s hard to get conservative entertainers to take the risk of being on his show.
I have to disagree with PAD a bit on this. I know where he’s coming from and if I had a job where my politics could potentially lose me money I might feel differently, I suppose. But I think it’s perfectly valid for people to support the right of people to speak their minds while not supporting them financially. There are many entertainment options and only so much money to spend. The last Dixie Chicks album had plenty of political content and people who disagree with the content will probably not like the song.
Me, I like a song if it appeals to me, even if the lyrics are morally and ethically bankrupt. Public Enemy’s Sophisticated Bìŧçh is a great song. Horribly misogynist, great song. Wagner was a Nazi. Walt Disney was by many accounts a rotten guy.
But if someone refused to pay money to see The Passion because they believed it to be anti-Semitic based on what others had said I can’t be too critical of them. Yeah, maybe they should have seen the movie first but if they did that and came away convinced they had just added another $10 to an anti-Jewish film they’d probably feel pretty burned. Similarly, I can easily imagine a lot of people finding some hip-hop songs too awful to enjoy, regardless of the melody.
Organized boycotts and out and out intimidation or violence are other matters. I’d say that I’m a lot more offended by people shutting down free speech at Columbia University than I am by someone not buying a ticket to a Dixie Chicks concert.
But make no mistake about it–the aim of Bryans’ message was to punish PAD for his beliefs. it basically said “You lost a reader because you don’t agree with me.” He has every right to do so but not to pretend that there is anything admirable about it.
If you want to read virtually the exact same thing from the other side of the political coin read the comments on various boards about Orson Scott Card.
Let me ask this: How many would refuse to hire a plumber or mechanic if you found out they had political views that differed from yours? So why should writers be singled out?
Den makes a good point…but if I knew that the TV repairman down the street was a virulent racist I might avail myself of the services of others.
Also, it’s unlikely that the plumber will in any way do something that has anything to do with his or her politics (maybe arrange my pipes in a swastika) but it’s quite likely that a writer’s philosophy will creep into the story. Once you’re aware of their biases you can often see it where it had previously been avoidable. I try not to be too nosy about the personal lives of creators but it is true that when you find out that a filmmaker was, for example, a closeted homosexual, you sometimes can gain insights into the themes that run through their work.
But again, to the subject at hand–Brians, you’re being a dìçk. Don’t agree with PAD’s politics, fine, right there with you sometimes. Don’t want to read his stories now as a result? Ok, your loss, it’s your money to do as you wish. Feel the need to tell him this, to try to either A-make him change his views for fear of losing his livelihood or B-just twist a little knife on the way out rather than have the guts to engage in an actual debate? Not cool. Cowardly.
It depends. If the plumber was Joe Liberal from uptown, maybe not. If he was someone from Plumbers & Pipes, Inc., and they happened to be someone who provided a lot of financial support to a candidate whose views you didn’t agree with, then you’d be perfectly within your right to seek a different plumber.
I’ve seen some pretty fancy looking diamonds from South Africa, and I can’t say that the gasoline from Venezuela is any less expensive or takes my car any fewer miles per gallon than another brand. But I choose where I gas up because I happen to care where my money goes (the diamond market not exactly being one where my influence has all that great an impact; nor the gas market, when it’s just me, but one does what one can.)
With art, it’s difficult to separate the creator from the creation, because there’s always so much of the creator in the creation — and sometimes moreso, because a consumer, knowing the background of the creator, may read more deeply into things that may otherwise have slipped by, things even the creator didn’t intend.
Although I doubt anything accidentally slipped inot the last Dixie Chicks album.
Not Ready to Play Nice, eh.
“Yet it’s the entertainers on the right who are more afraid of losing their jobs if they “come out” as it were.”
Maybe. But I think some of that is b.s. and excuse making by guys who can’t get ahead. Some of Hollywoods top money guys from the last two decades have been open about being conservative and even stumped for pols in open events.
Never hurt Arnold any. He was getting paid huge checks for as long as he could open big box office weekends and bring in truckloads of $$$$. It wasn’t until after his films started doing less well that the big wigs started looking for the “new Arnold” rather then seeing him as their go to guy.
Bo Derek is open about her conservative beliefs. She doesn’t get offered huge deals because she doesn’t bring in huge cash. She knows this subject and has said as much. She was asked about that on Fox News one time (near the 2000 election I think) and said that it was so much bull. she flat stated that she never had her conservative beliefs held against her in Hollywood.
Tom Selek is a conservative. He claims it’s held against him. Well, lets look at the record. He was open about it in the 80’s while he was one of THE hottest TV stars of the 80’s. Didn’t gripe about it back then. He went to movies. When he did big money at the Box Office (Three Men and a Baby) and he got big offers. No real gripes then. When he did films that did less well (mr. Baseball, Three Men and a Little Lady, Quigly Down Under) he got less grand offers. Then he’s being held down for being conservative.
Look at Fred Thompson. He was the leader of some of the groups that investigated Clinton. He was called names by the left, branded as a witch-hunt ringmaster and smeared left and right. What happened when he left office? He got an acting gig (his old job) on TV. Why? Cause he’s a dámņëd good actor.
Some guys may have run up against a bûŧŧ hëádëd boss or casting director in Hollywood who çráppëd on them for their conservative ways. I’ll grant them that. But the last time I looked, Hollywood ran on green. They dodn’t care what you are so long as you bring in the box office.
Hëll, I’ll even bet that Mel will be welcomed back with open arms the first time he wants to do a movie with the studio system. He makes the cash and he gets the pass.
The hypocrisy bit also shows up with the above guys and chat shows. The same people who say that the Chicks should shut up and sing and that actors should keep their mouths shut when not talking about their films are the same people having Toby Keith and some of the above actors on their shows to…. talk about politics.
It’s not a matter of wanting stars to be seen and not heard. It’s a matter of only wanting stars heard when they say what they (many conservatives) like. Don’t say what they like and it’s war. Keep saying what they don’t want to hear and it’s time to hurt the stars/singers saying non-conservative things.
That’s just naked hypocrisy.
I have no real problem with most folks saying that they don’t like a singer or actor because of what they do outside of their work. Jackson, TomKat, Mel and others have freaked out some of their former fans to the point that they can’t watch them or listen to them without flashing on all the strange stuff.
I do have a problem with the people that say stars should shut up and sing/act or else when they say something the fan doesn’t like but back the free speach rights of other stars who share the fan’s politics and then claim that it’s anything but hypocrisy.
I also have a problem with people, as you put it, being a dìçk. Bryans was one. Don’t agree with him? Well…
“It just makes me sad that it is people like you that will destroy this country.”
Nice thing post on this site to show yourself to be a twit. A group of cops, teachers, business owners, creators and others doing whatever they can to bring down the U.S. of A. by involving themselves in a free exchange of ideas and respect while, from time to time, posting nice bits of info that helps to offer help to others when they need it.
Yeah, we’re all just waiting for that phone call from OBL with our marching orders. Any minute now….
“Not liking O’Rielly for his political views and not buying his book filled with the same political views you don’t like him for isn’t even remotely close to the Chicks’ situation. The Chicks weren’t putting out albums trashing Bush or conservatives prior to their blowout with their fans. Not even close.”
It wasn’t a comparison of their philosophy. I was talking about financially supporting someone you don’t enjoy anymore.
If you never agreed with anything O’Rielly said and you don’t want to hear more, then the logical thing to do is to not buy his book. If you can’t listen to Dixie Chicks or Toby Keith without their political opinions ruining your enjoyment of their music, then the logical thing to do is not buy their albums because you don’t enjoy them. Neither action is equivalent to saying they don’t have a right to their opinions.
If you really don’t think the two are examples work well together, just ignore the O’Rielly part. My point works just as well with only the part about the musicians.
I’m not saying that there are no conservative or Republican entertainers.
I am saying that you are far more likely to have a speech interrupted or be attacked on stage if you are a conservative author or celebrity. And if you are a Hollywood actor and id yourself as even a little bit conservative you will be “Conservative actor Jerry C” for the rest of time. Sowing up at a liberal or Democratic event will not get you the liberal tag–it’s The Way It Ought To Be.
I don’t blame any actor for wanting to keep their options open. Yeah, Hollywood is all about money but unless you are Brad Pitt you’d have to be a mental case to actually think that you are the only choice. It doesn’t take much to get blackballed, for good or bad reasons. I’m sure the folks blacklisted during the McCarthy era could have made money for the studios but somehow the Big Shots managed to keep on going.
As to the Dixie Chicks and how much they’ve been hurt by the “boycott” (which seems to be mostly a chimera created by Clear Channel’s not-blacklist memo, after which, curiously, Dixie Chicks airplay on Clear Channel stations ceased as PDs spontaneously decided to drop them):
DATUM POINT 1:..When they played Philips Auditorium in Atlanta (which is where the Hawks play – it’s not a small hall) on their first tour after the controversy, it was a sell-out. And when someone booed them, one of them said “Hey – it’s your right, you paid for it – we got your sixty bucks…”
DATUM POINT 2:..Despite receiving practically no air play (see above comment about Clear Channel station stations “spontaneously” removing the Chicks from their playlists) it took a brand-new Johnny Cash album to knock their current album – which includes a song that basically says “Yeah, we said it – deal.” – out of the #1 slot on the country charts, where it had been for a while.
O’Reilly is a huge ášš.
Wait, what were we talking about?
“Supporting someone’s right to free speech doesn’t mean supporting what they say. Just because you want them to be legally allowed to do something doesn’t mean you can’t go against the specific things they say. Don’t like Bill O’Rielly? Don’t buy his book.”
Completely irrelevant. O’Rielly’s books are entirely informed by his political opinions. My work isn’t.
“Hate the opinions of the Dixie Chicks or Toby Keith so much that you can’t help but think about them when you hear their music? Don’t buy their albums.”
But that’s not a form of self-expression. That’s simply displaying a personality so limited that one cannot separate the performer from the music. Call it what it is: Narrow minded and punitive. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: No one in the industry, with the possible exception of Gary Groth, has been more consistently vitriolic toward me than John Byrne. But if he brought back “Next Men,” I’d be there with money in hand.
“It’s not remotely inconsistent to say that someone should be legally allowed to have an opinion, but you don’t want to financially support that person.”
It’s called paying lip-service to a concept. It’s also wandering off in a different direction from the original assertion: That getting back at someone whose opinions you don’t like by no longer buying their work is a form of self-expression, on par with the opinions themselves. It’s not: It’s simply punitive. As I said before, admit that it’s a form of punishment, a retaliatory action, and we have no argument. Claim that punishing someone for voicing opinions is no different than actually expressing the opinions, and I say that’s bûllšhìŧ.
PAD
Can I at least boycott snow? I am looking out my window at work and it’s snowing. *sigh*
I often hear about how conservative actors are descriminated against, but I rarely see it in play. Tom Selleck? Well, it’s already been noted that his career cooled because he made a bunch of bad movies and even with that, he still got a recurring role on Friends when it was the number sitcom in America. Charlton Heston? While he’s semi-retired, he was never shy about his political views and it didn’t hurt his career. Bruce Willis? Umm, yeah. He’s been hurting for movie roles lately. Sure. Ahnold? Please. Mel Gibson? Well, aside from his religious views, politically, he’s not a conservative and has been very vocal in his criticism of the Iraqi invasion. But even if you grant that there’s a perception that he’s a conservative because of the Passion, his career was going full steam ahead (Academy-award winning director and all) before his drunken tirade.
Yes, there are more liberals in Hollyweird than conservatives, but what Hollyweird loves more than anything else is money. If your movies make money for the studios, they won’t care who you voted for.
Now, as to the Bill-O vs. PAD debate. It’s really apples and oranges. The Big Giant Head is a political commentator. He’s paid to write about his political views and to draw attention away from his lofa fetish. I mean. Nevermind. PAD is a fiction writer.
Now, if you don’t want to read conservative political diatribes, nobody is forcing you to buy O’Reilly’s books. Personally, I don’t because he’s an unctious bully and a bad writer. On the other hand, I read the columns of George Will and James Lileks regularly because they’re really good and lucid at presenting their POVs, even though their styles differ dramatically. But when I want a good laugh, I read Thomas Sowell, just so I can count the number of times he makes the same broad generalizations and that he derides others for making.
But that’s all about tastes in writing.
Now, with any fiction writing, it’s always possible that the author’s political views can creep into the story. When it’s blatan and overbearing, it can detract from the story, which is why I can’t read anything by L. Ron Hubbard. On the other hand, while I don’t agree with a lot of Orson Scott Card’s views, I love his writing so I buy his books because they appeal to my tastes, even when his views do sometimes creep into play (as some of his Mormon theology crept into the Homecoming series).
In any event, people should support writers based on how well their craft appeals to them, not because they regard their patronage as a reward/punishment based on political views unrelated to the work.
It always cracks me up the way that some people “make a statement” by NOT doing something. Usually just ends up calling more attention to the thing they don’t like.
Do I think PAD is a better person than John Byrne? From what little I’ve seen, yeah. Would I buy a PAD title before a Byrne title? Probably, but only because I really don’t like Byrne’s writing. (His characters don’t seem live to me for some reason.) But comparing PAD’s work to Bill O’ Reilly’s work isn’t comparing apples and oranges, it’s comparing Apples and Playstations. Of COURSE O’ Reilly’s work is going to be affected by his political views, he’s a political commentator! Or at LEAST that’s how he sells his books. (Never read his novel, but I heard it wasn’t bad)
This morning when I dropped Brian off at school, the reverend that they have their teaching some of the older kids was talking about homosexuality, and how “Brokeback Mountain” didn’t do at all well, but all the Queers in Hollywood just keep making “those” movies that NEVER do well. Of course, the fact that movies in GENERAL haven’t been doing well over the past few years doesn’t have anything to do with it and the 3 Oscars that it won show that it’s a nothing movie. Kinda shows where some people heads are on the whole gay thing.