Blacklist Hollywood? Yes? No? Maybe so?

Why shouldn't celebrities express their political opinions? They have as much right to freedom of speech as any citizen in a democracy. Naturally enough the witch hunters who would persecute Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, etc, never expressed any qualms about the reactionary views which predominate throughout the media. Did any of the voices raised against these figures protest when Sly Stallone, a well known intellectual, advocated the use of nuclear bombs during the first Gulf war?
By what right do politicians speak on these matters? Divine right, or as democratically accountable representatives? For instance, why should I pay any more attention to Blair, voted in by around a quarter of eligible voters, than to any articulate representative of the anti war movement? It's plain to any student of British politics that Blair can't even claim to represent the majority view within his own party let alone the country, and yet he has a monopoly on power.
I praise the courage of those celebs who have opposed the drive to war, especially as in the US in particular they have nothing to gain by it, and a hell of a lot to lose. Those who oppose those celebs speaking out should have the courage of their convictions and confess that it's their views they find reprehensible, not any abstract question of abuse of power. I would question why anyone of firm convictions, be they political/religious or social wouldn't speak out on a matter dear to their heart be they a celeb or the average joe on the street.
Political conservatives would be better served arguing for the ending of oligopoly in the control and ownership of the media rather than falsely accusing the media of being left/liberal.

 

If they were genuinely opposed to war, that would be one thing. But these hollywood types are more opposed to a war that they believe would politically benefit Bush and I think that is why it appears so transparent.

 

If they were genuinely opposed to war, that would be one thing. But these hollywood types are more opposed to a war that they believe would politically benefit Bush and I think that is why it appears so transparent.


Actually, if you think about it, they're actually supporting George Bush. This war will hurt him politically, so they're trying to avert a war that will hurt him.

 

If they were genuinely opposed to war, that would be one thing. But these hollywood types are more opposed to a war that they believe would politically benefit Bush and I think that is why it appears so transparent.

Exactly. It is the hypocrisy that really annoys me. You only ever see the Hollywood types opposed to any actions taken by GOP officials. Did any of the liberal celebs protest the unsanctioned (by the UN) military engagements by started by the Clinton administration?

I would have more respect for them if they were true to their beliefs, instead of true to their political affiliations.

 

FireIceDeath said

Actually, if you think about it, they're actually supporting George Bush. This war will hurt him politically, so they're trying to avert a war that will hurt him.

Then why does most of America SUPPORT the president? The only way this war hurts the President is if it does not happen or if the USA loses, which would be a huge boon to the Left wing of the world

 

Bubba, I have yet to hear (please correct me if I'm wrong) a celebrity say they should not be criticized.

Ahem.

Hollywood Actors Raise McCarthyism Specter on Iraq

(Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=638&ncid=762&e=2&u=/nm/20030304/en_nm/leisure_iraq_blacklist_dc)

Hollywood actors, facing a vitriolic backlash for their opposition to a war against Iraq, have raised the specter of Cold War McCarthyism in an appeal to avoid returning to one of the movie industry's darkest hours.

The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) said a slew of hate-mail directed at actors who have taken a public personal stand against war, along with calls for boycotts of movies and albums on the nation's talk radio airwaves and Internet message boards, "suggests that the lessons of history have, for some, fallen on deaf ears."

"We deplore the idea that those in the public eye should suffer professionally for having the courage to give voice to their views. Even a hint of the blacklist must never again be tolerated in this nation," SAG, the nation's largest actors' union, said in a statement.

The SAG statement was issued in response to a growing tide of abuse toward American celebrities who have spoken out against a "rush to war" on nationally televised award shows, through interviews, anti-war TV ads or by taking part in mass protests.

Martin Sheen, who plays TV's popular fictional President Josiah Bartlet on NBC's "The West Wing," has been under fire since emerging as a chief spokesman in the anti-war coalition.

Sheen said in a Los Angeles Times interview this week that his hate-mail critics have demanded that NBC fire him from the Emmy-award winning series, adding that NBC executives had privately expressed fears that ratings would suffer because of the furor.

Sheen said the show's staff has been "100 percent supportive" but that top network executives have "let it be known that they're very uncomfortable with where I'm at."

NBC said on Tuesday that Sheen's personal views had nothing to do with the show. "Martin Sheen is acting in his capacity as a private citizen. We respect his opinion and his right to freedom of expression," NBC said in statement.

SHAMEFUL PERIOD

SAG said suggestions that "well-known individuals who express 'unacceptable' views should be punished by losing their right to work" was a "shocking development" which recalled the 1950s House Committee on Un-American Activities under Senator Joseph McCarthy.

More than 320 people, including Arthur Miller, Orson Welles, Dashiell Hammett, Paul Robeson and Charlie Chaplin were placed on a blacklist that stopped them working for the entertainment industry because of views considered left-wing or unpatriotic.

SAG called it a "shameful period" for the entertainment industry, saying the industry today had a duty to guard and cherish U.S. constitutional principles of free speech rather than "prostrate itself before smear campaigns and witch hunters" as it had 50 years ago.

Sheen, along with actor Sean Penn (who visited Baghdad in January), singer Sheryl Crow (who performed at last month's Grammy awards wearing a "No War" guitar strap), and scores of other celebrities have been slammed for being unpatriotic.

"I will not go to the movies. I will not support their television shows, I will not buy their music. My family and I shall boycott supporting anyone in Hollywood until they decide their job is for entertainment value only," said one writer to the "Citizens Against Celebrity Pundits" online petition.

G.I.Jargon.com, a Web site representing U.S. military, police and firefighters, dubbed the celebrities "Taliban" and called for a boycott of "anti-American entertainers."

McCarthyism expert Ellen Schrecker, professor of history at Yeshiva University in New York, said the level of rhetoric against anti-war campaigners could presage a return to the era of witch-hunts and blacklists.

"I think it is certainly a possibility. What I find heartening about the SAG statement is that it recogniz

 

Actors have a God given right to free speach, just so long as they aren't giving the impression that they represent the rest of us. Some people support them, but I believe there are more that don't. I don't know about you all, but I am more liable to believe my elected officals that have direct intell than a bunch of people who are professional pretenders (actors).

Its also our given right as consumers to not endorse or fund their movies or other projects if we don't agree with them. Some people will and some won't. It's a personal choice. I have been so disgusted lately with the anti-Bush & America sentiment that I am choosing to NOT support their movies with my dollars. My personal choice. If I miss a couple of good movies oh, well. My conscience will reimburse me, which I believe is more important.

 

I have been so disgusted lately with the anti-Bush & America sentiment that I am choosing to NOT support their movies with my dollars.

This seems to be the thoughts of the people who choose to boycott the films/shows. It isn't the message of the celebs really, but the political feel of the message. Why are they talking now, but didn't say anything 5 years ago during another administration's military actions? Consistency is the key...

 

Then why does most of America SUPPORT the president? The only way this war hurts the President is if it does not happen or if the USA loses, which would be a huge boon to the Left wing of the world

PPOR. While his approval rating is not bad, every poll I've seen indicates the vast majority of Americans support going to war only under certain conditions - i.e., after the UN has done its inspections, only with a UN resolution, only with allies, etc. Bush wants to go now, BEFORE Hussein can finish the disarming he is apparently doing right now. Which I find really suspicious - I'd rather wait until Hussein claims he's done, THEN go in and find the real weapons stashes and have unadulterated proof before the world that he's full of it and not about to comply. It's almost like Bush is afraid he really WILL disarm and he'll lose the chance to go in and unseat him, which I'm beginning to think is all he really wants to do.

Hell, even the PM of CANADA, the most laid-back country on earth, has come out saying we're being a bit rash. That's got to be a sign of the apocalypse.

And while you claim the maajority of Americans support Bush, why are we having so many anti-war rallies all over the world? Not just the big batch of them a couple of weeks ago, but there have been others since then. Some of these anti-war ralliers are, I'm sure, total hypocrites, people who just joined in for a kick or were hoping to pick up a hot date, etc.

So I think your beef should be more with the media who tells us, "HEY, YOU'LL WANT TO HEAR MARTIN SHEEN'S LATEST OPINION SO YOU'LL KNOW WHAT TO THINK" (sorry, I'm using caps because every message from the media feels like a plank over the head). The actors are just like any hypocritical idiot who shows up to a peace rally hoping to meet chicks - it's the press interviewing the actors and not the guy at the peace rally who give unfair advantage to the celebs.

 

Bush wants to go now, BEFORE Hussein can finish the disarming he is apparently doing right now.

Uh-huh.

A little secret for ya: he's not actually disarming. That little list in December that was supposed to be comprehensive didn't even list things we know he has from '98. Are you suggesting that he got rid of those weapons? And that he told no one? Despite the fact that it's those very weapons that are crippling his country through economic sanctions?


Hell, even the PM of CANADA, the most laid-back country on earth, has come out saying we're being a bit rash. That's got to be a sign of the apocalypse.

First, it's been 14 months since the "axis of evil" speech: I don't see how any reasonable human being can say we're rushing to war.

Second, I don't see your point: how is the Canadian PM's comments "a sign of the apocalypse"? He's not a hawk, so one would expect comments like that.

If you want a surprising turn of events, it seems that even Colin Powell is tiring of the United Nations: that is a sign we've gone slow enough, probably much too slow.


And while you claim the maajority of Americans support Bush, why are we having so many anti-war rallies all over the world? Not just the big batch of them a couple of weeks ago, but there have been others since then. Some of these anti-war ralliers are, I'm sure, total hypocrites, people who just joined in for a kick or were hoping to pick up a hot date, etc.

A non-sequitor: rallies in Paris do not disprove the fact that Americans support the war. And the let's-leave-Saddam-alone-so-he-can-get-a-nuke-all-in-the-name-of-peace rallies here have been tepid. Even in a town like San Francisco, which claimed to have 200,000 protestors at a recent rally, likely only had 65,000.

To put that in perspective, the San Francisco metropolitan area has a population of about 6.9 million people.

So an anti-war rally attracted less than one percent of the people in San Francisco. Color me underwhelmed.

 

Bubba, I wasn't clear enough.

A little secret for ya: he's not actually disarming.

I thought I implied this very fact, but I must have edited it as I was writing it. My bad. My point was that if Bush would wait just until Hussein claims he's done disarming, I bet you good money we (or the UN) would then find something seriously amiss, something that convincts Hussein in all the world's eyes. And regardless of my thoughts on this (which would belong in the Iraq thread, if we wanted to discuss this further), my point that related to this thread was that I think 3B is taking Bush's decent approval ratings as an indication that most Americans back his specific stance on the war. I don't see this.

First, it's been 14 months since the "axis of evil" speech: I don't see how any reasonable human being can say we're rushing to war.

Um, not everyone sees this connection Bush seems to draw between a terrorist who viciously attacked us and a nasty tyrant who, despite being a nutcase, hasn't attacked anybody for some time.

Second, I don't see your point: how is the Canadian PM's comments "a sign of the apocalypse"?

I thought you had a sense of humor. Can you recall the last time Canada criticized America, or for that matter, anyone? 90% of the time, we forget Canada's even there, they're so quiet and non-confrontational. For their PM to actually bother to criticize the US in the slightest is quite a surprising turn of events.

A non-sequitor: rallies in Paris do not disprove the fact that Americans support the war.

Don't try to mislead the argument. There were mupltiple rallies in Los Angeles, about 750,000 people at a rally in NY, and tons more Americans at rallies everywhere. I'm sure you knew this.

To put that in perspective, the San Francisco metropolitan area has a population of about 6.9 million people.

So an anti-war rally attracted less than one percent of the people in San Francisco. Color me underwhelmed.

Dude, San Fran barely has a million people. Your metro area must include all of Northern California! Trust me, I've lived there. And there's literally almost no parking in SF, it's to cramped, so I don't see anyway for people to drive two hours from Modesto and Pleasanton and Stockton and so on for the rally.

Even so, I asked 3B to PPOR that "most Americans support Bush". If he just means the approval ratings are above 50%, that's a pretty vague statement. If he means to imply most Americans support Bush going to war anyway he likes, I want proof of this. No poll I've seen indicates this.

I have seen a lot of anti-war bumper stickers and t-shirts. I have yet to see anything saying, "Go Bush" or "I support the war against Iraq". You can yell "Leftist propoganda machine!" all you want, but I'll be forced to assume conservatives are too stupid to print their own bumper stickers, if that's your argument.

 

This very topic was addressed last night on NBC's Dateline. A little blurb at the end, nothing major, and forgive me if I get the "facts" a little wrong.

There was a VERY UNSCIENTIFIC poll that AOL conducted about celebrity opinions and politics. There were about 1\2 million polled....something like 93% of the people DO NOT CARE about what the celebrities think about politics.

You see, it is not an issue..no one cares.

Personaly, I have never listened to anyone when it comes to politics. I am a liberal.no doubt about it.


BUT....

I DO support Bush on his war on IRAQ. I came to this conclusion by research on the facts. It will be sad to lose Americans to war...I will cry, but I will also rejoice in knowing that the VERY SERIOUS threat by Saddam will be taken care of. It is OBVIOUS to me, that our government knows things that are not being released to the general public. Whether you like Bush or not, I strongly feel that NO ONE wants war.....but it is necessary to protect our life as we know it.

SO, NO, the liberal Hollywood has not, and will not EVER influence my feelings about politics.....

 

I heard another comparison as well regarding the percentages of those who protested. For example, a big deal was made that over a thousand people at UC Berkley walked out of class to protest. Berkley has a Student body of over 23,000, so over 90something percent of the class DIDN"T PRotests, and it went on and on thru out every major protest across the country, where the vast majority of student's DIDN'T walk out, but it was reported like everyone had joined in the protest.

 

The papers and other forms of media are reporting more stories about the protests rather than the support.
Perhaps it is because of the celebrity factor, I don't know.....But one thing I have notices about news programs...they RARELY refer to GW as "president". They refer to him as "MR. Bush" or "George Bush". BUT, they refer to Clinton as "President Clinton". Hmmmm......

Interesting thing that I heard, and again, forgive me if I am not 100% accurate, as I am working off memory.

In regards to Bush's approval rating......it has been stated that it is going down, but not because of the war. Most people polled stated that the reason why they disapprove of President Bush, is because of what he has done the economy. NOT because of the war on Iraq....These same people polled..support the war...again,hmmmm.......

 

Anyone notice that George W. Bush has the same failings that his father had? If that is the case then I look forward to a repeat performance.

 

Anyone notice that George W. Bush has the same failings that his father had? If that is the case then I look forward to a repeat performance.

Biggest failing of George Bush Sr. .... "Read my lips, no new taxes".

 

Yes, the words that sealed his one term as president. Not a very wise move on his part. And it appears that GWB is actually saying "Read my lips, no new taxes." But in his own little way.

 

My "blacklist" is reserved for dumbasses only. Some have made it on this list by their activism coupled with ignorance and stupidity. The fact that I don't always agree with them doesn't mean I'll punish them by not patronizing them. However when someone makes a dumbass move, like going to Iraq, letting a government offical choose what you can see, and then coming back and saying "oh well there's no oppression or WOMD over there", I will blacklist you for that because you're a dumbass, not because I disagree with you.

 

The papers and other forms of media are reporting more stories about the protests rather than the support.

Yes, but here in L.A., they showed huge crowds at several local rallies for anti-war, and a very, very sparse crowd of maybe 50-100 people having a rally to support the war.

So, what's your excuse now?

 

Yes, but here in L.A., they showed huge crowds at several local rallies for anti-war, and a very, very sparse crowd of maybe 50-100 people having a rally to support the war.

Maybe it's because we don't really relish a war. We'll fight if neccessary but we're not asses either.

 

Nah. They had signs saying, "We support Bush" and "We support our troops". Nothing very controversial about that. Not like if they'd had signs saying, "Nuke Hussein".

 

And it appears that GWB is actually saying "Read my lips, no new taxes." But in his own little way.

Not quite sure about this?? You mean his tax cut? Even if it gets reduced (likely) it still is a tax cut, and not additional taxes.

 

I think this whole thread would have just gone away if the word 'Blacklist' hadn't been used outside of its popular meaning, with all of the negative conotations implied.

Sigh.

 

TreeCave

I thought I implied this very fact, but I must have edited it as I was writing it. My bad. My point was that if Bush would wait just until Hussein claims he's done disarming, I bet you good money we (or the UN) would then find something seriously amiss, something that convincts Hussein in all the world's eyes. And regardless of my thoughts on this (which would belong in the Iraq thread, if we wanted to discuss this further), my point that related to this thread was that I think 3B is taking Bush's decent approval ratings as an indication that most Americans back his specific stance on the war. I don't see this.

There are also actual polls about the war itself, polls that tend to show broad-based support -- such as this:

"Two-thirds [of Americans] support military action against Iraq. About that many say United Nations support is desirable but not necessary if the United States has the support of other countries like Australia, Britain and Spain, according to an ABC poll."

But returning, for a moment, to the issue of Saddam disarming, I think it's naive to think that he will ever claim he's done disarming (or that, if he did, he would then allow a full inspection of his country), and I also think it naive that anything would convict Saddam in the eyes of the entire world: France, for instance, seems damned determined to ignore everything.


Um, not everyone sees this connection Bush seems to draw between a terrorist who viciously attacked us and a nasty tyrant who, despite being a nutcase, hasn't attacked anybody for some time.

This ignores the fact that Iraq is giving money to the family of Palestinian suicide bombers.

At any rate, the connection with bin Ladin is unnecessary: Saddam is working on weapons of mass destruction, Saddam has worked with terrorists in the past, and Saddam has targeted the United States and her interests (including an attempted assassination of a former President).

At what point do we recognize that bin Ladin is not our only enemy? Shall we wait until an American city is destroyed and we find proof that Hussein is behind it?


I thought you had a sense of humor. Can you recall the last time Canada criticized America, or for that matter, anyone? 90% of the time, we forget Canada's even there, they're so quiet and non-confrontational. For their PM to actually bother to criticize the US in the slightest is quite a surprising turn of events.

And France is genteel, right?


Don't try to mislead the argument. There were mupltiple rallies in Los Angeles, about 750,000 people at a rally in NY, and tons more Americans at rallies everywhere. I'm sure you knew this.

750,000? PPOR.

Supposedly, the huge rally in DC attracted 200,000 people (and that's a very high estimate). You're saying that in New York there were over three times that number? I demand proof.


Dude, San Fran barely has a million people. Your metro area must include all of Northern California! Trust me, I've lived there. And there's literally almost no parking in SF, it's to cramped, so I don't see anyway for people to drive two hours from Modesto and Pleasanton and Stockton and so on for the rally.

"My" metro area? No, if you follow the link, the population stat comes from the U.S. Census.

But what you're saying is this: people care so much about opposing the war that three-quarters of a million will protest in spacious New York City, but bad parking will keep an SF protest down to 65,000?

That's laughable.

Particularly when one considers that 3Com Park can hold 70,000 people. A reasonable person would conclude that a groundswell of protest would turn out at least that many people.

Instead you're making excuses.

 

And Fire_Ice_Death, if you recall your American history, the Bush tax increase was supposed to be accompanied by spending cuts. The Democrats did not keep their word, proving themselves dishonest and completely ambivalent to the best interests of the American people. It doesn't matter if a bloated budget creates deficits, as long as those deficits can get a Democrat into the White House.

History repeats itself in many ways.