codeorama Posted April 12, 2003 Author Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by stratoman 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 1) So what? 2) Your opinion that it's stupid 3) So what? What if "George Brett" had been very outspoke FOR the war. 4) Your opinion, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 12, 2003 Author Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by Henry Kilmer is right. Noone Constitutional right to free speech was stomped on here. That said. I think it was a dumb thing to do. Totally agree, no one's right's were infringed upon, I said that early in this thread, but they guy's a moron for doing it. Baseball has nothing to do with politics. I threw the name George Brett out there earlier, he is my favorite athlete of all time, bar none. I personally don't like the extreme left or right and Brett is an extreme right winger, he's friends with Rush Limbaugh, whom I cannot stand, but does that make me think any less of Brett? NO, I love the guy, I don't care what party he votes for or belongs to, I don't care if he's for or against the war, He's my favorite ball player, nothing more, nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 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. Nope no polls as of yet, Just my opinion, and the opinion of many in the sports media.. for example this article from ESPN Insider MLB: http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/archive?sport=MLB No Bull makes for Hall of shame The decision by the Hall of Fame to cancel a 15th anniversary celebration of the film 'Bull Durham' because of the political viewpoints of some of its participants has, naturally, inspired a number of columns. Among them are these: Jeff Jacobs in the Hartford Courant, using Crash Davis's "I believe" speech from the movie as a jumping off point for the argument that free speech is still a right in the United States. Ira Berkow of the New York Times also uses the film's dialog to this end as well as taking examples from the actual playing of the game itself to illustrate that dissent is a part of the American way of life. In Toronto, Jeff Blair of the Globe and Mail is especially hard on Dale Petroskey, the man responsible for the decision by writing that the Hall of Fame has admitted all manner of societal misfits as well as many great men through its doors. It is this cross section that makes it a body representative of society at large and it should, therefore, be more accepting of every point of view. Steve Kelley of the Seattle Times uses the juxtaposition of images of Iraquis, suddenly free to speak their minds for the first time in decades, celebrating in the streets of Baghdad with the Petroskey decision to cancel the event rather than present Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon in a public forum. Are there any baseball columnists who agree with Petroskey's position? In the interest of presenting an opposing viewpoint, I was counting on finding one or two in certain newspapers that might see things his way. There were none in the MLB Insider at press time, however. I think the lack of an opposing voice might be an indication that what Petroskey has done is so not in keeping with the American spirit that nobody -- regardless of political persuasion -- would dream of condoning it. A Slam To (Political) Left Jeff Jacobs / Hartford Courant The Hall tolerates no dissent Ira Berkow / New York Times Hall's cancelling of baseball film a lot of bull Jeff Blair / Toronto Globe & Mail Forget about Saddam; it's Robbins and Sarandon we must fight Steve Kelley / Seattle Times I doubt all the bashing in the media, sports talk, TV about canceling the event, is really good publicity for the image of the HOF and MLB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama 1) So what? 2) Your opinion that it's stupid 3) So what? What if "George Brett" had been very outspoke FOR the war. 4) Your opinion, nothing more. comment on # 3 fact is Robbins and Sarandon have been outspoken on the war and Brett has not. comment on #4 it is fact that MLB's appeal has sharply declined in recent years. :jerkoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 12, 2003 Author Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by stratoman comment on # 3 fact is Robbins and Sarandon have been outspoken on the war and Brett has not. comment on #4 it is fact that MLB's appeal has sharply declined in recent years. :jerkoff: My situation was hypothetical... what if he had spoken out in favor of the war and a Liberal had cancelled a ceremony because he was going to be a part of it.... It wasn't meant to be taken literally. MLB's decline has nothing to do with international politics or democrats or republicans, it has to do with greedy players and greedy owners gouging the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama My situation was hypothetical... what if he had spoken out in favor of the war and a Liberal had cancelled a ceremony because he was going to be a part of it.... It wasn't meant to be taken literally. MLB's decline has nothing to do with international politics or democrats or republicans, it has to do with greedy players and greedy owners gouging the fans. if your hypothetical were to happen, then they would have the that right. Why bring on anything that could hurt the image of MLB further. He didn't want to take that chance. " if ifs and buts were candy and nuts oh what a party we could have!" Ken Beatrice WMAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 I don't have the time or energy to read this whole thread, but did anyone read the response Robbins made to letter he got? It concludes with the line, and I am paraphrasing because I don't remember it exactly, "I believe in the miracles of democracy, freedom of speech and the '69 Mets." The Hall of Fame guy is an idiot. He made a non-political event into a political flap and just made himself look stupid to everyone in this country except for a few denizens of this message board. And to top it off, he gave Sarandon and Robbins Page A-1 exposure when they should have been delegated to about page A-34, with the ads for ambulance chasing lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 12, 2003 Author Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by joe I don't have the time or energy to read this whole thread, but did anyone read the response Robbins made to letter he got? It concludes with the line, and I am paraphrasing because I don't remember it exactly, "I believe in the miracles of democracy, freedom of speech and the '69 Mets." The Hall of Fame guy is an idiot. He made a non-political event into a political flap and just made himself look stupid to everyone in this country except for a few denizens of this message board. And to top it off, he gave Sarandon and Robbins Page A-1 exposure when they should have been delegated to about page A-34, with the ads for ambulance chasing lawyers. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 12, 2003 Author Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by stratoman if your hypothetical were to happen, then they would have the that right. Why bring on anything that could hurt the image of MLB further. He didn't want to take that chance. " if ifs and buts were candy and nuts oh what a party we could have!" Ken Beatrice WMAL No one is questioning whether or not the HOF guy had the right to do it, he obviously did, the only thing in question is if he should have. Since baseball has nothing to do with politics, it doesn't make any sense for him to have done it. He put his personal beliefs up front and spoke for baseball, that was wrong. My hypothetical situation was to ask those who don't have a problem with the HOF guy taking the action he did, if they would or would not be offended if he was liberal and did the exact same thing because a potential speaker was FOR the war and had been out spoken... Ofcourse the right would have been upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Code/Joe/TEG....with all due respect...you guys put out some of the most fatuous tripe I have ever read on this thread. either that or you are dishonest by intention. many (read a lot of people) in this country have had to sit silently for decades now while the Hollywood types, the purveyors of goodness, the blessed few who know what is best/fairest and, above all else - most just - have controlled the terms of the debate; have abused language by infusing certain terms with emotional and pejorative connotations that serve to tar anyone who uses the terms; to push the agenda where many don't want to go by claiming moral superiority where it doesn't exist...... The freedom of speech you so willing pout for has been used to fire people from their jobs and threaten their rights; to tar all conservatives as right-wing hitlerites; to undermine principled debate on a thousand and one university campuses to the point that if you have a conservative point-of-view your organization will ber tossed off campus or lose all funding. who the eff are you kidding? what you are seeing now is delicious in the extreme. ponder the sociology and politics of all of this for a while. this is payback with a vengeance. the conditions and tools were set elsewhere - long ago. oh.....and your assumption that the HOF is duty bound to have sopme sort of equal opportunity clause for ideas is ludicrous. my suggestion is you take the same ideas to a thousand and two college coops or to NOW......or any other organization of high minded, "democratic" keepers of the flame of truth, virtue and the American way. let me give you a tip: I was purchasing some computer boooks at a local bookstore today and happened to wade my way through the introduction to Noam Chomsky's latest diatribe. What struck me was his assertion that he, and many like him, were fundamentally about achieving a more just society. The really satisfiing part about all of this is that he and his crowd - the left - have so undermined any logic or foundation for a moral foundation, have so thoroughly reletavised all moral debate, that we are all now free to adopt any pov we like. I feel perfectly at home passing the big intellectual middle finger to these people. they have undercut all the institutions and logic that ultimately lead to any final foundation. they have purveyed for decades one feel good, intuitive morality after the next. well....great! now live with it......motha*uckers (the left, not my Redskin soulmates of whatever stripe)!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 oh...*amn right I would be upset if a liberal did the same. that's how the game has been played for a while now. don't like it? then change things. until then....this particular wine has a mighty sweet taste to it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 fan, Did you actually read what I wrote? Your response does not seem to correlate with anything I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 AMEN fansince62!!! :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 12, 2003 Author Share Posted April 12, 2003 fansince, my only reply is this: If the situation were reversed, I would be equally upset. You know by reading other threads of different topics that I am by no means a straight across the board liberal. I don't like extremes on either side. I can totally understand where you are coming from if you feel the left has had their way much too long and is finally getting some back. I can't disagree with you because I honestly haven't been keeping score. I know from our posts that you take politics way more serious and personally than I do, so I have no problem with your opinion. Just know, that if it were reversed, I would be right there with you ****in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Baseball has nothing to do with politics. Clearly, you've never followed the HOF balloting then. But seriously, all of this is much ado about nothing. Robbins and his squeeze were disinvited from some lil' event honoring some silly ol' movie they once made together. Whoop-dee-f*cking-doo. Besides, I've always liked Major League more than Bull Durham, anyway. Let's see a gala event for that movie now, okay, HOF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 14, 2003 Author Share Posted April 14, 2003 Originally posted by Glenn X Clearly, you've never followed the HOF balloting then. But seriously, all of this is much ado about nothing. Robbins and his squeeze were disinvited from some lil' event honoring some silly ol' movie they once made together. Whoop-dee-f*cking-doo. Besides, I've always liked Major League more than Bull Durham, anyway. Let's see a gala event for that movie now, okay, HOF? Great point about the voting....:notworthy Major league was awsome too.... I really like the natural as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 14, 2003 Author Share Posted April 14, 2003 I heard on ESPN's Mike and Mike show this morning that the HOF guy is backing down now... I'm sure he got a ton of hate mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 The debate IS about whether or not he had the right to d it. Robbins letter indicates that. His accusation is that his speech is being limited. It is not. And if the roles were reversed (as in the case of the DJ's TV show) I would have the same stance. Actions have consequences. IF you dont want to be judged on your political stance, then keep them to yourself. If you want to exercise the freedom to speak your mind, you must also be willing to accept the consequences of that speech. Im sure he's getting tons of hate mail, as well as tons of support. The change in this war is that the right is no longer allowing the leftists to control the debate and make outragous comments and lies without being called to task for them. The left claims they want debate, but that is EXACTLY what they are getting for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 14, 2003 Author Share Posted April 14, 2003 Kilmer, in my opinion, there is no doubt what so ever that he had the right to do it. The Freedom of Speech doesn't really apply to private entities. It is really just the freedom to say what you want about the government with out fear of the government taking action against you. If you have a private club or business, it really doesn't appy. I agree that most people fail to understand what their "freedom of speech" actually is. Tim Robbins does understand based on everything I have read and from hearing him on ESPN radio and on Sportscenter. In my opinion, this wasn't about whether he had the right to do it or not, it was whether he should or not. I don't think it was appropriate. I know for a fact if the guy was liberal and did the same thing to a conservative for speaking out in favor of the war, the right woud be upset... (I would be upset at that as well). You have to admit, there are many things that you can say or do legally, but probably shouldn't. I still say the right thing to do would have been to talk to Robbins ahead of time and find out what his intentions were or just not allow him as a speaker. Then you have resolved the entire issue with out punishing others for your beef with 2 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 joe....my comments struck to the very heart of what you posted. your post essentially said two things: 1) only a few idiots on this board are exercised about this; and, 2) the HOF had no business politicizing the matter. and my response was that the politization of the arts, governance, the very categories we use to discuss these issues happened a long, long time ago as part of the liberal agenda to WORK ITS PREFERRED END STATE INTO THE FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION. this is just payback and doesn't peturb me one iota. until such time as the left ceases to tar and feather every person who has a contravening idea as some sort of right wing neandrathal....I'm perfectly unreflexive when it comes to raising the din a decibel or two so the idea fascists on the left can't be heard! turn around is fair play as it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 My point was never that the HOF couldn't make their own decisions. I just think they look stupid doing it in this case. Stupid is as stupid does! (Oh should I wait to see how Tom Hanks feels about the war before I quote this movie? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 fan, To take your second point first, if, as you say, the extreme left began to make political statements where they don't belong, such as the arts, sports, etc., it does not make it smart for the extreme right to do so as well. In fact, of course, the extreme right has been doing this for years, remember the Mapplethorpe exhibit that had its funding cut by, and I can't specifically remember, but I think it was either Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmon. The Hall of fame guy, (Petrosky, is that his name?) opened up a can of worms and gave a platform to the very people he was trying to avoid giving a platform to. This leads me to what you call my first point. By giving Robbins the platform he sought to keep from him, Petrosky was, in fact, an idiot. But, I would never use that term for my friends on this board whose opinions, while I might not always agree with, I respect. My point when I spoke of the denizens of this board was twofold. One, I love the word denizens. The second was that this really was the only place where I saw any support for Petrosky at all. And I mean anywhere, radio, TV or the web. OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Joe The comparison are no where close. Tax payer money was being used on filth like p1ss christ a crucifix in a jar of urine, the dung maddona (elephant sh1t). Mapplethorp was homo/pedophillia images presented as art that the public yeah me found disgusting. I see no problem with the guy stemming the anti Bush anti American nonsense by cancelling it. I still dont think the movie was that great and his best movie was when he was a prison b1tch/H&R Block/ Jail break expert. Its not like the movie was Damn Yankees or Major league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 NavyDave I made the comparison because like Robbins, the supporters of Mapplethorpe's gay pornography were given a forum and publicity that they did not deserve and would not have had without the funding flap. The attendance at the Mapplethorpe exhibit was huge, way more than it had any right to be, only because of the publicity. The same is true of Robbins and Sarandon. As I said in the beginning, for several days they were a story on page A-1 when, had it not occured, they would not have even been mentioned in the paper at all. As far as the quality of the movie, perhaps the hall of fame should not have bothered to honor it, but that is a debate of a different matter entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Originally posted by joe I made the comparison because like Robbins, the supporters of Mapplethorpe's gay pornography were given a forum and publicity that they did not deserve and would not have had without the funding flap. The attendance at the Mapplethorpe exhibit was huge, way more than it had any right to be, only because of the publicity. The same is true of Robbins and Sarandon. As I said in the beginning, for several days they were a story on page A-1 when, had it not occured, they would not have even been mentioned in the paper at all. Sometimes doing the right thing, on a personal and individual level (as Petrosky felt he was doing here), is not about opinion polls or popularity contests, not even if doing said right thing somehow provokes some sort of P.R. coup for one's opposition in the matter. Sometimes doing the right thing (or the feeling that one is doing the right thing) trumps all other considerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.