codeorama Posted April 11, 2003 Author Share Posted April 11, 2003 The Fans who could care less what celebs have to say about the war (or anything for that matter), but would enjoy seeing the movie honored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Why is he a putz for exercising his rights but Sarandon and Robbins are victims? Because I said so According to this article, Robbins and Sarandon weren't even scheduled to speak at the event. 'Bull Durham' Star Responds to Criticism Fri Apr 11, 8:05 AM ET By JIM LITKE, AP Sports Writer Not every screwball in the Hall of Fame is a baseball. One of them just happens to be its president. That would be Dale Petroskey, and after this latest mess, there's reason to wonder how much longer he will hold on to that exalted position. Petroskey, a former assistant press secretary in the Reagan administration, wrote a letter Monday to actor Tim Robbins informing him the hall was canceling a 15th anniversary celebration of the movie "Bull Durham" scheduled for April 26-27 at Cooperstown. Had Petroskey deep-sixed Robbins for a barely credible throwing motion while portraying fireballing right-hander Nuke LaLoosh in the movie, that would have been one thing. Instead, the hall boss cited Robbins' anti-war stance. He said the actor's "very public criticism of President Bush (news - web sites) ... helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger." This is how far wide of the plate that pitch was delivered: Just a few days before Petroskey wrote the letter, sailors aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt told a reporter that to lift spirits, they increasingly tuned out the news in favor of lighter entertainment. One of their favorites, naturally, was "Bull Durham." "I donated the uniform I wore to the hall," Robbins said. "Man, what an honor that was. Now I just hope it's there the next time I get back." By Thursday, the actor was more resigned than mad. A day earlier, he dashed off a response to Petroskey, telling him: "You belong with the cowards and ideologues in a hall of infamy and shame." Until then, Robbins and Susan Sarandon, his co-star in the movie and longtime companion, had intended to take their sons to the anniversary celebration. While there, Robbins planned to look in on the uniform, part of the hall's "Baseball in the Movies" exhibit. Now they won't be going anywhere near the place. "This was just a celebration, a chance to see some friends from the movie and make what's become almost an annual trip with our boys," Sarandon said. "I'm not sure what he was so scared about. As far as I knew, we weren't speaking. I wasn't even planning to wear makeup. And to politicize baseball is to violate the spirit of what it's all about." Indeed, major league baseball distanced itself almost immediately, saying in a statement it had "nothing to do with the Hall of Fame event." "It is not our practice to make political statements," spokesman Rich Levin added. Petroskey, who became president four years ago, was unavailable for comment. But hall spokesman Jeff Idelson said, "The letter stands for itself." He added that 5,000 e-mails poured in Thursday alone, both pro and con. "It's too early to sort them out," he said. "Suffice it to say we're an emotional venue." Baseball's place in American life, while hardly as prominent as it was once, still matters. During World War II, President Roosevelt ordered the games to go on and Hall of Famer Bob Feller still recalls how scores were printed on the same sheet as the orders of the day and how most mornings, he memorized both before settling in behind a 40mm cannon on the deck of a battleship in the South Pacific. When an earthquake (news - web sites) devastated San Francisco just moments before the first pitch of Game 3 of the 1989 World Series (news - web sites), the city asked baseball to resume play as quickly as possible. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the game provided an emotional rallying point in one community after another. All told, there are 66 members of the hall who served in the military during wartime. Say what you want about the propriety of celebrities sounding off on complex issues, but Robbins knows plenty about the lore and history of baseball. He grew up in New York City playing stickball, stoopball and softball in the park and made the first of his four trips to Cooperstown as a 10-year-old. He signed his letter to Petroskey with a reference to an old World Series champion: "Long live democracy, free speech and the '69 Mets — all improbable, glorious miracles that I have always believed in." He didn't stop there. "These kind of bullying, intimidating tactics have no place in democracy," Robbins said, "and certainly no place in baseball. I'm still wondering what kind of message they were sending me and anybody else who happens to disagree with this president." On the plus side, Robbins vowed the cancellation won't keep him from returning to the hall. But he won't even start making plans to get there until the middle of the summer, sometime after an exhibit on "Baseball and the Presidency" has already closed. Jim Litke is a national sports columnist for The Associated Press. Write to him at jlitke(at)ap.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishhead Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Didn't you guys get the memo? Being a conservative nazi is in the mainstream these days. If you think differently, you are just flat out wrong(which seems to be the neo-conservative motto). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Some more fallout... "The Hall's stance resulted in another cancellation. Author Roger Kahn, whose "Boys of Summer" is considered among the best baseball books ever, has called off his August appearance to speak at the Hall in protest." Kahn comments... "By canceling the Hall of Fame anniversary celebration of 'Bull Durham' for political reasons, you are, far from supporting our troops, defying the noblest of the American spirit. You are choking freedom of dissent. How ironic. In theory, at least, we have been fighting this war to give Iraqis freedom of dissent. "But here you, through the great institution you head, have moved to rob Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and Ron Shelton of that very freedom. In support of the American right to dissent, I have no choice but to cancel my August speaking appearance at the Hall." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Robbins comments are exactly what Im talking about. Why are his rights endangered? Whyare his rights more important that the rights of the President of the HOF? If he doesnt want him (Robbins) to be there, he has the right to cancel the appearance. And everyone has the right to respond in a way they see fit. It was just a matter of time before a Liberal through out the Nazi line. Free speech for everyone means EVERYONE, not just Liberals. The only Nazi's are the people who want to force the Presidnet of the HOF to do something he doesnt want to do. I'll ask this simple question of the Liberals on this board. Why is the President of the HOF not allowed to protest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Bully for Kahn. He has every right to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 MLB nor the HOF board made this decision, nor does MLB have any policy about the war or politics in general. One man made the decision based on his own personal feelings and politics. His actions were not based on what actions would best benefit the HOF, MLB and their fans. His job is to promote and run the HOF, not use his position to further his own personal political agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 His job is to do what he feels in in the best interest of the HOF. This was his decision. One he was entrusted and empowered to make. Or should we limit his rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Robbins comments are exactly what Im talking about. Why are his rights endangered? Whyare his rights more important that the rights of the President of the HOF? If he doesnt want him (Robbins) to be there, he has the right to cancel the appearance. And everyone has the right to respond in a way they see fit. It was just a matter of time before a Liberal through out the Nazi line. Free speech for everyone means EVERYONE, not just Liberals. The only Nazi's are the people who want to force the Presidnet of the HOF to do something he doesnt want to do. I'll ask this simple question of the Liberals on this board. Why is the President of the HOF not allowed to protest? I truly hope you are thinking this through. Free speech does not mean limiting someone's speech - it means promoting it. What the HOF pres did wasnt free speech. Now, if he had said that I do not think that Robbins and Sarandon should be here - then yes - thats free speech. He went beyond that though - and surely - you can see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 No, Freedom of Speech means the GOVT cannot limit speech. The HOF is not the GOVT, so they can limit whatever they want. Thats THEIR right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Kilmer, Please note that I am talking about the broad version (or the philosophy) of free speech. Not the guarenteed constitutionalized version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I understand. BUt isnt it his (HOF) right to do what he feels is in the best interest of the hall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishhead Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Kilmer, The man has the right to protest, so I hope that simply answers it for you. But... Politics should not be involved with choosing people for the HOF, or in any sort of sports institute. Now, how does that have anything to do with having the right to protest? Every American has the choice to support or not support anything they wish. And for this man to do what he did based on someone's beliefs and actions, is the most "unAmerican" and "unPatriotic" thing he could have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 And for this man to do what he did based on someone's beliefs and actions, is the most "unAmerican" and "unPatriotic" thing he could have done. If you substitue "this man" with Robbins and Sarandon what would you say? Why are their rights mopre important than his? Simply put, the HOF is not Govt. If the Pres of the HOF fealt it was in the HOFs best ineterest to cancel the event, that's HIS decision. One I support. I also will defend your right to disagree with it. Why wont you give him the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Kilmer, Just so we are on the same page here - if the HOF pres, gets fired over this - its ok? Because actions have consequences right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Absolutely. I would have no problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Kilmer, you wouldn't be agitated if the HOF president was a Liberal and decided to cancel a ceremony because "George Brett" has said publically that he is in total support of the war? 1) George Brett played MLB and Robbins didn't. 2) this is not a HOF induction just some stupid ceremony to honor a movie. 3) Robbins and more so his wife Sarandon, have been very out spoken about this war. 4) Baseball has enough bad PR and this ceremony could have had more negative PR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 His job is to do what he feels in in the best interest of the HOF. This was his decision. One he was entrusted and empowered to make. Or should we limit his rights? He can protest, vote, speak out against anything he wants to as a private person. No one wants to limits his personal rights. His job is another matter. His decision reflects the image of the HOF and MLB. If he was receiving full support from the board members & MLB or acting on behalf MLB policies then he was well with in powers of his position. But so far all accounts have stressed this was a personal based decision It doesn't matter what the political side your are on, Say he was a liberal and canceled a appearance by President Bush based on his own personal politics. The end result is still the same...the decision was a bad business move and hurts the image of the HOF and MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by phishhead Didn't you guys get the memo? Being a conservative nazi is in the mainstream these days. If you think differently, you are just flat out wrong(which seems to be the neo-conservative motto). that most be some good acid your taking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by The Evil Genius "have no choice but to cancel my August speaking appearance at the Hall." Who the f@ck cares!!:puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Hurt their image? Says who? Do you have polling data that I havent seen? IMO he strengthened the image of the Hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by phishhead Politics should not be involved with choosing people for the HOF And they are not. Baseball players are voted into the HOF by Sports writers. Robbins was not getting inducted into the HOF. It was just some stupid ceremony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by bubba9497 It doesn't matter what the political side your are on, Say he was a liberal and canceled a appearance by President Bush based on his own personal politics. a lot of the left leaning universities do not book conservative speakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Hurt their image? Says who? Do you have polling data that I havent seen? IMO he strengthened the image of the Hall. I agree, what I meant was he canceled the ceremony as to not hurt the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Kilmer is right. Noone Constitutional right to free speech was stomped on here. That said. I think it was a dumb thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.