Ok… explain this to me like I’m a six year old.
Boycott-Hollywood – A site that has been set up *specifically* to target and punish celebrities for their “anti-war” statements, has been dealt a death blow by the William Morris Agency. The site is being closed down by dotster sometime within the next few days.
Get this… Boycott-Hollywood complaining that their “freedom of speech is being infringed on”, and this is unfair.
You really have to laugh at the irony of it all.
(Link via Misty)
//** Update – A new domain name, registrar and host is in the works… **//
37 thoughts on “No soup for you!”
Hypocrisy abounds!! Timothy Robbins – of Shawshank Redemption fame – shame on you. And Susan, wonderful work in The Rocky Horror Picture Show — the closest you should have ever come to politics was banging Barry Boswtwick ( the Mayor in Spin City). Is that a condom in your hair?
You guys are wonderful on the big screen. I watch your movies to enjoy stories that you tell. Or that writers tell you to convey. If you want me, and many other americans, to spend our money on your movies — stick to fiction. Your political views don’t impress me at all.
Tim, you and your cronies don’t stop at anti-war. In speech after speech after speech you are anti-America. You come off criticizing the country. You don’t stop at criticizing the war. You don’t stop at criticizing the president. You criticize the country.
TIm, what do you think of what Abraham Lincoln did to due process back in 1860 in the Civil War era or what FDR did to due process in the midst of World War II? You probably don’t know what I’m referring to.
Basically, read from scripts that your consultants tell you to — don’t ad-lib. You aren’t smart enough.
And Natalie, stick to the lyrics — unless it rhymes, your words make no sense and speak to your lack of education.
The fabulous thing about this story is that dotster has apparently back down after an influx of people threatened to boycott them. This is absolutely hysterical, in my opinion.
All these people running rampant, boycotting everyone for looking at them crooked. It cracks me up.
Oh… that IS hilarious! Kind of like the end of “Gilligan’s Island”, where every one chases each other at the end…? :0)
But I have no doubts in my mind this soap opera has a little more mileage in it. I’ve got to update that new tidbit of info.
“You don’t stop at criticizing the war. You don’t stop at criticizing the president. You criticize the country.”
Oh yeah… OH YEAH??!!!??
Well if you like this country so darn much, Patrick… WHY DON’T YOU JUST STAY HERE OR SOMETHING!!??!!??!
(Hey, it’s my boss. I need this job, ok?)
Anti-war people are complaining about their right to free speech is being infringed upon, Boycott Hollywood is complaining that their freedom of speech is being infringed upon (and their own medicine doesn’t taste very good, does it? I don’t feel the least bit sorry for them, either. If you can’t take it, then don’t be dishing it out.), we should boycott this…wait a minute…we should boycott this instead…What’s a person supposed to do?
I have an idea. Let’s just boycott everything.
[removes tongue from cheek.]
I’m not going to comment on the war, but I absolutely hate when big corporations push around little guys by threatening legal action that wouldn’t in a million years actually work if they had to go to trial.
I’ve only looked briefly at WM’s claims and (IANALY) but they seem pretty out there.
They usually are, Scooter.
Trust me, I have quite an impressive collection of Cease & Desists over the years… To actually pursue me on one of them would cost thousands in legal fees…
Can you comment about France?
I had no problem with the Dixie Chicks boycott because it got the radio stations to quit playing that damn landslide song every 5 minutes and I don’t have a problem with people boycotting movies because it means shorter lines and more popcorn for me! I LOVE America!
LOL! And to think all this crap with the Dixie Chicks because one of them said “She was ashamed to be from the same State as Bush”??? Hmmm… I wonder if it works the other way…?
Hey I’m ashamed to be in the same state at Rick Santorum…SUPPORT ME!!!!!!
Seriously. This whole thing is so dumb. Were these celebrities being photographed, with the Republican Guard? Visiting POWS and calling them “War Criminals”? No. It’s just U.S. citizens speaking their mind. This Boycott bullshit is just another product by people with too much time on their hands.
When one of them reaches “Hanoi Jane” status, let me know.
*Spits on the way out.*
Yes -e- you are right. Wait — ummmmm. No, you aren’t. Duh.
The Dixie Chicks used their celebrity to launch an anti-american bomb – in a foreign(not happy with America) country — when they knew damn well we were going to war. Just for some cheers — good move stupid.
Say it in Texas Natalie — if you have the temerity. Or if you really believe what you spouted.
Sean Penn. Enough Said.
Alec Baldwin. Why are you still here?
Barbara Streisand. You witless moron.
Martin Sheen. HA. DO you really think you are the president? Its a show. Really.
U.S. citizens have a right to speak their mind — whether they are mindless(Dixie Chicks) or not. That’s not the point.
As far as Rick Santorum — hate him for being religious. Bad move on his part, but at least it was genuine. He’s got a right to have his beliefs — those who elected him were apparently in the majority. Did you vote?
Boycotts are stupid. You are right. I still eat French Fries — not Freedom Fries. I’ll still enjoy a Timothy Robbins movie.
I certainly don’t hate Rick Santorum. He’s just the politician-with-his-foot-in-his mouth du jour, and I’m just having fun with him, that’s all…
And yeah, Alec Baldwin *did* say he was leaving the country if Bush was elected, didn’t he? Hmmmmm… will file that away for later ridicule.
I think we should have a quiz, on what celebrity said what. My big problem on the web is this “follow the crowd and bash the ‘anti-american celebrity’ for what they said”… I guarantee you half of them don’t even know what they’re so riled up over. (I admit I see those names bashed everywhere, and have no idea… Jeanine Garafalo seems to have people *exceptionally* riled up.)
Bruce Willis was so gung-ho about the war, he wanted to go over and fight… does that change my opinion of him? Hell no, I fucking love the guy!!!
I’m confused… we agree everyone has the right to an opinion, and boycotts are stupid… what was I wrong about? :0)
Why can’t everyone just play nice?? *lol* ;op
You are left — so you must be right.
Heh. You narrowmindedly or with prejudice blew off what these celebrities did. And suggest it was simply a comment on who lives in their state.
Puuuuuuhlease -e-. Give us and yourself more credit than that. They were trying to ride the anti-war sentiment to the top in Europe, Now they are getting naked and trying to sell records.
They are screwed. If they weren’t, they would have not banned the refunding of money on their U.S. tour.
Janeane is right. War wasn’t necessarily the best choice. Diplomacy failed. What can you do.
She said -“It’s testosterone that is driving this war.” “It’s a lust for oil.” “They’re lying to us.” ANd then she tried to take it back. Say what you feel — and stick to it. For that, I give Natalie credit — too bad she took two people down with her stupid comments.
Was Bill even keeping us abreast of the Monica Missiles? Or did we forget aboput his endless Iraqi bombing raids.
Where were the lefty hollyweirds then? Oh, thats right, They liked good old Billy.
That’s it. I declare a boycott on all things Maria. 🙂
LOL! Makes you wish that troll that threatened to take you blog to *your* boss, was around to see this, huh, Maria…? :0)
Nah Seriously. Patrick hosts this site as well as Carole’s, and Tina’s, and well, half of Stroudsburg. We have a pretty good relationship, even if we disagree on a few political things.
Oh shit!!! I just wrote all this nice stuff about you, and you called me “left”????
AAAAAW… That’s cold man!!!!
1) Yes… you have a good point that Natalie Maines said her remark overseas. That was a mistake.
2) No, I did not forget about Clinton, or the carpet bombing of Iraq in 1996 (which was over the attempted assasination of King George the first, I might add…), or Kosovo, or Somalia… and who could ever forget Monica! Mrrrowwwwr…
3) Actually, I think the Dixie Chicks probably pulled the most brilliant PR stunt since some freak dangled his baby over a rail… there’s no such thing as bad press, and they’ve proven it. How do I know this? Even I was tempted to buy the new Dixie Chicks CD… and I HATE country music!
Edog. You are the man. Enough said.
Time for a new topic to rant about.
You got it bro…. :0)
Yeah, partisan spewing is cool! Hate whom you wish. It soooo makes you better than them. Damn those Dixie Chicks for trying to play to their audience! It serves them right for pulling the same kind of stunt Steve Miller used to do with the city name in “Take It Easy.” Yet they made it political.
Once you go political the gloves are off.
Don’t forget to drag in Clinton as if it meant a damn thing now. Oh, what a surprise! Both parties keep producing bad presidents. What kind of mental back flips are required to bash Clinton and those ‘Hollyweirds’ while ignoring Reagan’s multi-criminal conviction regime and his trickle down economics that performed a golden shower on the majority of Americans whose bladders’ weren’t full of tax breaks.
I feel so much safer when celebrities, no matter how vapid their opinions may be, are scared to criticize the government. It makes me feel so free.
We should be like dogs and have unconditional love for what America does in the world. Let’s Fetch ourselves a Navy recruiter. Let’s Roll Over to the Middle East and Stay there as long as we want and then years later we can try and Beg to get our veteran’s benefits. That’s when Americans Play Dead.
Seriously, I don’t care about the boycotts. I find them amusing in a train wreck sort of way.
The people who should REALLY have been upset at Natalie Maines’ comments were Lipton (the sponsors of their tour), Sony (their record label) and their agent. The Dixie Chicks were working when she made those comments and she did something that has the potential to cost her employers serious revenue in the future, not to mention all the bad publicity. The people making all the noise are not the ones you need to worry about. They will scream and cry and get over it fairly quickly. It’s the people who won’t say a word but still to this day will not buy German even though WWII has been over for a very long time. (I know some of these people.)
Personally, I don’t care what she says on her own time. I don’t even care what she says when she’s working. But I can understand if her employers choose to cease employing her on the basis that she is no longer performing her job to their specifications.
The day I have freedom of speech with freedom from consequences at work is going to be a beautiful day, but it’s not here for me and it’s not here for them either.
John — I guess I really don’t understand.
It’s okay for the liberal left to moan and groan about what Bush did in Iraq — where was the anti-war sentiment when Clinton was bombing Iraq?
I’m not dragging Clinton into this — I’m calling the liberal left to the carpet and wondering why they choose to fight the fight now — when they were the ones ignoring it a few short years ago.
Trickle down economics? You missed the boat on that one. Why didn’t you just say ‘trickle down economics didn’t trickle’?
It did — it works — just not immediately. Everyone – well almost everyone – knows that. Clinton was riding a tide of prosperity because of Bush 41 and his balanced budgets.
This isn’t worth continuing. Read the facts — then comment.
Ceblebrities should voice their opinions — at the polls – like the rest of America — not through the use of their celebrity status and on the dime of large corporate sponsors.
Where was the anti-war sentiment during Clinton? It was there and almost as ignored then as now. Most bombings there were covered poorly anyway and used to make sure Saddam continued to control only a portion of his own country. But the sentiment also included a stance against sanctions, now debunked (Albright can go to hell). It’s useless to even go there, since my point is that the Dems are Reps Lite and voters (except uncounted ones in Florida) decided to go for the real thing.
Read the ‘golden shower’ joke again. Unless you think it’s good to be pissed on (though I guess you can drink it like Kool-Aid). I’m not likely to buy Bush’s single term stay as a reason for Clinton’s wave riding anymore than Clinton having anything to do with rampant IPO con jobs popping the IT bubble. Wait a sec. Gore did ‘take initiative in creating the internet’ so I guess you can start your spin from there. If partisan tunnel vision is what passes as fact, then I’m afraid I’m screwed since I’m the type of guy willing to pee in both parties’ pools.
Lastly, I find the “sponsor’s dime” bit funny. I’m sure it factors into the music itself too. So recording artists must be limited to singing their views rather than expressing them all the time like everyone else. I don’t expect celebrities to behave differently just because they got a camera pointed at them from how I would behave. Why must politics be a special case of separation and silence? They represent the artist and the artist alone. If they signed away their right to speak on politics, then I’d agree with your point. The whole thing is absurd. It’s not like celebrity opinion has any bearing on our national security. Non-famous People can come to their own opinions just a easy as they can and it is part jealously that is driving this big stink.
Dems are Reps-Lite.
I totally agree. Why do you think they did so poorly in the most recent elections.
You are seemingly intelligent. I just can’t agree that Clinton had anything to do with our recent prosperity. It was tight budgeting throughout the 80’s and some trickle down effect.
He was the one that caused Enron to be possible – or at least his administration. Argue that if you want, but you’ll be wrong. And don’t take the Garofalo stance – please.
Sheep do flock — and to them Celebs can be shepards.
“The day I have freedom of speech with freedom from consequences at work is going to be a beautiful day, but it’s not here for me and it’s not here for them either.”
I for one hope that NEVER happens. That was really the entire point of this post.
Our “free” speech comes with a price tag. it always did. Sarandon and Robbins *know* that their views are costing them certain appearances and gigs, yet they continue. Oday Hussein and his remark about “Americans whining about 9/11” bought him a few cluster bombs with his name on it. Saddam’s post-9/11 remarks about our foreign polices bought him a few too. Natalie Maines criticized the President in a country where an overwhelming majority of people disagree with the decisions of their prime minister. And a website, dedicated to criticizing and boycotting critics of the war in hollywood, is now under attack by an agency whose best interest is served by their clients continuing to make revenue…
Yet everyone is whining that their “freedom of speech” is being hampered?
No, it isn’t. Your words are now stirring up a reaction. An adverse one that you probably weren’t expecting.
“Freedom of speech” does not mean you have the right to run our mouth and everyone has to sit there and take it. Quite the opposite. People have the right to react to it as well… Like the President said to Natalie Maines: “Freedom works both ways”.
Our “free speech” comes with a price tag. That’s the object lesson here. Not who’s right and who’s wrong for what they said…
(This public service announcement has been brought to you by the “One who has had his ass handed to him for his remarks many, many times… and never hid behind the First Amendment during the backlash.”)
Free speech — with a price tag?
Free education — with a price tag?
Get with it folks. Free speech is always challenged. And it comes at a price. So does education.
We know it — grow up.
Just don’t assume its the right that pressures free speakers — just study McCain-Feinstein — to see what their idea of the first amendment is.
Then concede that free speech doesn’t mean you can lack moral clarity. Be intellecually honest – if you can — and admit that Maines and co. really weren’t in the right — or should I say left.
I know that’s why they did so well. That and that the Nader voters forgot we can’t seem to manage more than a 2-party system.
I can seem to be a lot of things, but not as one that thinks Clinton had responsibility for the economy during his terms and not one to hold to the fantasy that anything would trickle down if Bush got everything he wanted. Eliminating the Estate tax is a sure-fire way to see it remains as little a trickle as possible. I just don’t see the point in catering to the uppermost class instead of fueling the creation of small businesses. A consumer driven economy needs a strong middle-class and that means setting up entry ramps rather than catering to the established players. I would rather have a chance to do it myself, than wait for it to trickle down.
Hmmm, Enron was a horse race between both parties in getting money out of them for favors. The last I read about it, the Reps were winning, but I wouldn’t count the Dems out of the race until the ink dries on the Enron verdict. But as I said, I see little difference between the two other than the Dems seem to come cheap, which suggests they are incompetent at being liberal and being corrupt.
John — I see we disagree. But you are presenting a standard case that I can’t wholly dispute.
As far as Enron — do your homework. I’m not talking about money for favors between Enron and the two parties. I’m taliking about the administration that made it possible for Andersen to do what it did — thereby making the ENRON model possible.
I won’t insult you by spoon-feeding the info to you.
(The sound of Eric’s point going everyone’s head)
I recall quite a bit of Clinton-bashing in the web community… the trail of dead bodies every time a witness was called up to testify against Hillary & co. in Whitewater. The rumor that every “w” was removed from typewriters, and fine china was stolen by the “trailer trash administration”.
I don’t think the Republicans are getting a “bad rap”, while everyone stayed silent about the Clinton administration…
In Patrick’s defense, there was a big argument at work, as a little article flew by about how the Clinton Adminitration turned a blind eye toward Enron, and the problem festered until it exploded while the Bush administration was left holding the bag (and the blame).
In John’s defense, he is very much “center” in terms of his politics. He’s no fan of Clinton or Bush. He’s definitely no “leftist”.
I attribute the long-lasting success of Reaganomics, and the trickle down theory to a JOINT effort of a Republican White House working with a Democrat-dominated congress. They threw Reagan’s far-right suggestions out the window, while he vetoed ultra-liberal ideas… the result was a very-balanced government. One we enjoyed the results for decades to come.
(No I’m not throwing in Iran/Contra, and the Bitburg incident. That’s not the point.)
I don’t believe any *one* party can represent the people fairly. Until we get back to both parties evenly keeping each other in check, we’re gonna be miserable for decades to come.
There once was an Economic theory that stated it would take the public 6-8 years to see the benefits of any action by any president. I hesitate to mention this because I’m not an economist, I have no desire to be an economist and therefore do not know how to defend this theory. (It was told to me by an economics professor, if that adds to the credibility at all.)
If you’re going to blame Clinton for ENRON or WorldCom (or Adelphia or Xerox . . .), then you may as well blame BushI, Reagan, Carter, etc., etc. The Clinton administration did not prevent the scandals from happening, but neither did any of the other administrations before Clinton.
I feel pretty firmly that the blame should be placed directly on the shoulders of the people responsible – The executives, audit committee and auditors of those companies.
But Eric — if John is center — that makes him left – in my perception.
Seriously, the Clinton administration made it possible for Andersen to ‘Audit’ their clients — get with it people — that was the problem.
And yes — no one party can represent the interests of all Americans. But what choice do they have? In order to get elected, we have a new party — once known as democrats — they are now, rep-lite. Stick to a side dems — maybe you can win one.
Mist — you mist the point.
It was the Clinton administration that changed the policy regarding whether or not paid consultants could audit the books for their clientele.
Anyone who wants me to be their financial consultant can have me do their taxes for half off — and 10% of what we hide……..
Oh — sorry — that was Bush – no uh I mean – Carter uh …. well. Oh yeah — Clinton that made that possible.
According to the logic that setting up the grounds to make it easier for people to commit crimes by abusing their trusted positions makes those politicians responsible, then any abuses by law enforcement officials via the Patriot Act should reflect poorly on this administration. Seems only fair. I’m sure most of the law enforcement abuses are going to take the route of the FBI busting down Steve Jackson Games than full-fledged political badgering of lefties.
Oh, I’m a lefty like Perot, Clinton, and Bush Sr. I can bat either way, but throw left.
I agree — the Patriot Act scares me to death. And abuses that arise are the responsibility of those who enacted it.
But I believe that Congress passed it. So the argument is what?
Congress didn’t change the responsibilities of an auditor. That was done solely by Clinton and his cronies. Period.
This is all off point —- I quit.
Re: Enron. If we have to put the blame on anyone… Let it be the CEO’s who caused, exacerbated, and called on the favors of at least two administrations to bail them out of the mess they created. Fuck ’em!
Re: Democrats/Reps Lite – They have no balls. You know it, and I know it, John knows it. If there is one prospect that horrifies me more than President Bush, it would be “President Gore”. He proved to be an imbecile and found himself in a web of lies. The fact that my Skid Row CD now has a “Parental Advisory” sticker, and the best song on the CD cut out… is all thanks to his meddling wife, whom I will never forgive for the PMRC.
How is it that I can walk into any bar, and overhear some drunk that makes more sense than Bush… yet the Dems can’t stir up a decent candidate? No. They’re too busy, taking surveys, trying to find out what we *want to hear*, and will insult our intelligence with a candidate/construct, run it up the flagpole and see if we salute… They may as well carry the slogan of “Vote for me, ‘cuz I’m not Bush… and well, that’s about it.” The Democrat Party is doomed.
Clinton’s Carpet Bombing of Iraq – Good! Iraq sent agents to assassinate Former President Bush in Kuwait. Saddam was being a little shit again. I can only imagine that if anyone would have a problem with the U.S. retaliating, it would be because of who it was that gave the strike order…
But while we’re there… let’s look at the big picture: (And Misty made this great point in a previous thread, as her husband was in the military at that time) What if Clinton had kept his word and hunted down “those responsible for the USS Cole, or the embassy in Tanzania”?
3,000 people would still be working in the WTC, four airplanes would have touched down in San Francisco, and several hundred military and civilian office workers would be alive in the Pentagon.
Instead, we the American people were more concerned with where Bill was sticking his dick.
It’s time we all started looking at the big picture instead of worrying about “who did what”.
Actually, it’s entirely on point. The Patriot Act was written by Bush cronies and those that aspire to appear ‘tough on terror’. I see no difference here except that Congress was scared into passing it because voting against a “Patriot” act is unpatriotic, right?
It’s on point that it appears hypocritical to call out one party that ‘started it’ and not address the various ways both parties have given in to corporate lobbyists. I don’t believe for one minute that a Republican president wouldn’t have done what Clinton did. Quite frankly, I lost my stomach for Enron early on because it was more of the same corporate corruption and incompetence that I dealt with during my IT days.
Anyway, I agree that if this is just going to be sniping about what political party is responsible for what, then I’m not interested in continuing either. I’m more interested in finding out if the next person I vote for can make any difference at all. I don’t have much hope that it will at this point.
Well, in my opinion, this whole conversation (as interesting as it was), went astray when we went from “Freedom of Speech” to which party screwed the country more…
By the way, has anyone noticed my clever little title? It comes from the Seinfeld Episode with the “Soup Nazi”
Oopsie… I just said “nazi” and screwed this thread by invoking Godwin’s Law.
By the international rules of UseNet… it now must be closed. (darn)
Thanks for playing everyone! It was a great and informative discussion as usual. :0)
(Comments are now closed. Shucks.)
Comments are closed.