When you call the tune...

[Ben E Lou]

...you have to pay the Piper!

Sarandon, Robbins, Dixie Chicks, etc. etc. etc. They're now all whining because they're experiencing the consequences of their words. Gimme a break! They have freedom of speech, and the public has the freedom to boycott them as well. That's the way these things work. Another symptom of the pervasiveness of the thought that we can live a consequence-free life.

<center>When you call the tune, you have to pay the Piper!"--Rowdy Roddy Piper</center>

[Radii]

With the single exception of the Hall of Fame/Bull Durham incident, I totally agree with you, despite the fact that I agree with most of their views ;)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Radii
With the single exception of the Hall of Fame/Bull Durham incidentWhy that exception? Isn't the Hall of Fame a private institution?

[Bee]

I completely agree.

[Radii]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Why that exception? Isn't the Hall of Fame a private institution?

I had a really long reply typed up but basically, yeah, they certainly have the right to do it, I'm just terribly disappointed that they chose to do so. From what i have read and heard, none of the cast of Bull Durham was even going to be speaking, and you're punishing a hell of a lot more than those two actors by cancelling it.

I'm a romantic about baseball, and I know I'm not alone even after all the crap baseball has been through recently. To see anything surrounding the sport get so politicized is disappointing to me.

[Lazy Eye]

Where did you here they were whining?

I think it is funny, people like that think they are so immune from anything. Where does ego like that come from, adulation?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Lazy Eye
Where did you here they were whining? It has been all over the news. Robbins was literally in tears this morning on one of the "good morning" shows.

[dacman]

Originally posted by SkyDog
It has been all over the news. Robbins was literally in tears this morning on one of the "good morning" shows.

Brother.:rolleyes:

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by SkyDog
It has been all over the news. Robbins was literally in tears this morning on one of the "good morning" shows.

To be fair, I don't think he was crying because of the HoF flap. I think he was crying because Katie Couric said he, and I quote here*, "Throw like a spastic little girl."







*of course I'm quoting what Katie Couric would say if I was in control of her brain, not what might have actually been said on the Today show. Katie Couric also might say things like "Good God, Matt... grow your freaking hair out again" and "Did I really say that Saddam 'hopefully made it to Syria'? I'm such a worthless slut. I deserve to be punished. Spank me Skydog. Spank me like the bad girl I am."

[sachmo71]

Yikes, Cam!

[Ben E Lou]

Katie cheated on Cam 10 years ago, and he's never forgiven her... ;)

[JPhillips]

Again, I ask why its wrong for these people to voice their political views, but its fine for the head of the HOF to voice his political views? It seems to me that Sarandon/Robbins and Petroskey are both doing the same thing, but only one side to being lambasted. If its wrong for anti-war celebrity types to speak out it should be equally wrong for pro-war celebrity types as well. How is using the HOF to voice your views supporting the President any different?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Again, I ask why its wrong for these people to voice their political views, but its fine for the head of the HOF to voice his political views? It seems to me that Sarandon/Robbins and Petroskey are both doing the same thing, but only one side to being lambasted. If its wrong for anti-war celebrity types to speak out it should be equally wrong for pro-war celebrity types as well. How is using the HOF to voice your views supporting the President any different? I never said either one was wrong. It isn't. What is wrong though, is to voice your opinion, and then be unwilling to deal with the consequences. Robbins/Sarandon should be prepared to deal with whatever consequences and repercussions come as a result of their words. Petroskey should be prepared to deal with whatever consequences and repercussion come as a result of his words.

[mckerney]

From what I understand the HOF didn't want the ceremony to turn into an event with people giving political statements, which the two had done at an awards ceremony earlier. It's not that the head of the hall is voicing his political views, he just doesn't want politics to be brought into a celebration at the HOF.

[Ksyrup]

I think he was envisioning a Michael Moore-type incident. I would have discussed it with them before taking that kind of action, though. If they couldn't agree to keep politics out of any remarks they made, then I would have canceled. And if they did so promise, I would have made sure they were on a short leash. I think for making that decision pre-emptively, the guy is getting what he deserves.

[JPhillips]

mckerney: Petroskey said,

"We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important -- and sensitive -- time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position..."

and

"As an institution, we stand behind our President..."

Those are both political statements made by a former Reagan appointee. He specifically says that criticism of the President, not the troops, undermines the US. Bull. No President should be immune from criticism regardless of the situation. Lincoln was criticized, Rossevelt was criticized, John, Nixon, Bush1 were criticized. Now you may not agree with the views of the critics, but to say the President should be immune from criticism is a cynical political ploy.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JPhillips
mckerney: Petroskey said,

"We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important -- and sensitive -- time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position..."

and

"As an institution, we stand behind our President..."

Those are both political statements made by a former Reagan appointee. He specifically says that criticism of the President, not the troops, undermines the US. Bull. No President should be immune from criticism regardless of the situation. Lincoln was criticized, Rossevelt was criticized, John, Nixon, Bush1 were criticized. Now you may not agree with the views of the critics, but to say the President should be immune from criticism is a cynical political ploy. So?

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--I left that post at just one word to make a point. Yes, Petroskey made a VERY political statement. That's his right. It is also the right of those who disagree with him to express their displeasure. That's my whole point in the first place.

[JPhillips]

Skydog: The post cited was an answer to mckerney saying that Petroskey did not voice his political views.

I will agree that Sarandon and Robbins et all must deal with the consequences of their actions. I don't have any problem with that. What bothers me is the way many people have piled on the anti-war folks for voicing opinions while they don't say the same thing regarding the pro-war folks. Personally I don't have problem with either side voicing opinions, that's why democracy and free speech rule! I just find it very hypocticical to say that the anti-war celebs should shut up while never saying the same about pro-war celebs.

Regarding the HOF stuff specifically, its sad that this event has become about politics. If it was really Petroskey's goal to keep the HOF above politics, he did a damn poor job of it. He first should have tried to settle this privately, not make a public spectacle about it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JPhillips
What bothers me is the way many people have piled on the anti-war folks for voicing opinions while they don't say the same thing regarding the pro-war folks.That's the nature of the beast. The last poll I saw said that something like >70% of Americans support the war. When you're someone who makes your living based in good point on people liking you (an entertainer), then you should expect it to hurt your living when you take an unpopular position. It doesn't mean you shouldn't, but they need to know that they can't have it both ways.

If you need an example of a conservative who has paid the price recently for exercising his right to freedom of speech, give Trent Lott a call.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Dola--I left that post at just one word to make a point. Yes, Petroskey made a VERY political statement. That's his right. It is also the right of those who disagree with him to express their displeasure. That's my whole point in the first place.

I don't think the HOF should be about politics.

His actions represent the Hall - it's not just an individual expressing his opinion. I guess technically it was within his rights to do it, but that's not the point. The point is that institutions like the HOF should strive to be politically neutral.

[User #2735]

One thing to add because I think it flew past everyone's radar screen.

A few week or so before the whole HOF flap, the United Way of Tampa Bay cancelled a fund raising event that to was have featured Susan Sarandon as a speaker. Link (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/gossip/5506449.htm). They expressly mentioned the threat of her going off on a political rant as being the reason for the cancellation. My question is that why didn't people make such a big deal made about this? I'm starting to think that the HOF cancellation was blown up bigger in part because of Petroskey's past ties with the Reagan administration...that made it a lot more convenient for people to scream "Censorship! Censorship!" and continue bashing Republicans.

[JPhillips]

Skydog: I just don't like political opportunism disguised as patriotism, by either the left or the right.

[JPhillips]

User2735: I hadn't heard about the earlier incident. For me, I didn't make Petroskey an issue, he did. He's the one who wrote the political statements I quoted above. He's the one who brought his politics into the discussion.

I think the United Way should have handled it the same way I think Petroskey should, by a private conversation. If Sarandon went off, cut her mic and get her off stage.

[MylesKnight]

..and to think Shawshank Redemption is one of my All-Time Favorite Movies.. or shall I say was... Mr. Robbins and his arrogance, (does anyone really give a damn about his stance on anything? That's like me wanting Market advice from Suge Knight.. It's not gonna happen.), have definitely caused that film to slip down a few notches in MK's most recent Poll. :D

Kudos to you, Big Mouth Timmy!!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by KWhit
I don't think the HOF should be about politics.

His actions represent the Hall - it's not just an individual expressing his opinion. I guess technically it was within his rights to do it, but that's not the point. The point is that institutions like the HOF should strive to be politically neutral. 1. Maybe it should be. Maybe it shouldn't. I'm sure there's some sort of board of directors of the Hall. If they agree with you, then they can remove him (consequences). If they don't agree and think that the Hall should be politically conservative, then they can keep him there, and know that fewer liberals will pay money to come to the Hall (consequences).

[MylesKnight]

Anything think maybe this is a ploy by the Hall to get everyone to forget about Pete Rose and stop bothering them about Charlie Hustle getting in?

Hmmmmm...... Conspiracy?? :D

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
..and to think Shawshank Redemption is one of my All-Time Favorite Movies.. or shall I say was... Mr. Robbins and his arrogance, (does anyone really give a damn about his stance on anything? That's like me wanting Market advice from Suge Knight.. It's not gonna happen.), have definitely caused that film to slip down a few notches in MK's most recent Poll. :D

Kudos to you, Big Mouth Timmy!!

So you can't separate the person's performance from his character either?

SkyDog, what does morality have to do with sports? ;)

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
So you can't separate the person's performance from his character either?



I can. At least most of the time I can. There are a few people that I can't watch because I just don't like the person (Barbra Streisand would be one). Tim Robbins is someone I can watch.

I still listen to the Dixie Chicks. I love their music. BUT, I would never go to a concert now knowing that Natalie big mouth might ruin the experience. I love to hear her sing, but not speak.

[MylesKnight]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu

So you can't separate the person's performance from his character either?

SkyDog, what does morality have to do with sports? ;)
Anrhydeddu, bottom line, we found out just who Tim Robbins is and what he's all about.. It doesn't matter what films he has performed in in the past, this is the real person behind all of that. His arrogance caused me to lose any respect for him that I had, period.

Call it what you want, my friend..

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
Anrhydeddu, bottom line, we found out just who Tim Robbins is and what he's all about..

Really, you just now found out? :D

Personally, I think Tim Robbins is a tool, but that fact doesn't hinder my ability to enjoy Shawshank.

[Ksyrup]

I still count Bob Roberts as one of my favorite movies, despite the fact that I'm a conservative. If you saw that one and couldn't figure out what Tim Robbins was about, then I guess you didn't really pay attention!

I just thought the movie was well done and very effective, even if I disagreed 100% with the protrayal of conservatives. But certainly, there are people like Rosie O'Donnell and Barbra Streisand that I can't bear to watch - I don't care what the subject is. Hell, they could be narrating a Jim Gindin documentary and I'd boycott it.

[Anrhydeddu]

I think ignorance should be bliss but with the vulture-like media and pervasive outlets of anything about anybody, it's hard not to have that factor in the enjoyment.

[MylesKnight]

You know, and I'd say this is a bit OT, I'm still waiting for a movie to come out about Jim Jones and The Peoples Temple...

Anyone heard anything about this?

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
You know, and I'd say this is a bit OT, I'm still waiting for a movie to come out about Jim Jones and The Peoples Temple...

Anyone heard anything about this?

A new one? No, I haven't heard. Saw the made for TV version many times. Is Tim Robbins in it. or are they going to screen it at the HOF?

[MylesKnight]

Grant, actually I believe it doesn't have anything to do with the Tim Robbins situation.. It just crossed my mind, that's all.. with all this talk of movies and actors and actresses and everything..

I did read something sometime ago about a Jim Jones related movie..