Rehire Charlie Sheen?! What could CBS be thinking?
Barry Bonds goes on trial for perjury today. He is one of our society’s prime corrupters. Bonds cheated, lied, broke the law and helped drag major league baseball’s integrity into the depths, all with the objectives of breaking records by players better and more honest than he, and becoming rich and famous. He accomplished all of these things, with no appreciable negative consequences; as of now, his career and life carry the lesson that cheating works, and anyone who lets things like rules, laws, or ethics stand in the way of success is a fool. Perhaps the trial will change that. I can dream.
Now CBS has stepped up to be a prime corporate ethics corrupter. Reportedly, it is negotiating with Charlie Sheen to get him back on the air, either in his now defunct show “Two and a Half Men,” or in something else. True, Sheen has behaved as unprofessionally as it is possible for a professional to act, publicly insulting his ex-producer, who rescued his career as well as his co-star. For good measure, his diatribe against Chuck Lorre, the creator of the show, was laced with anti-Semitism. He ridiculed Alcoholics Anonymous, the savior of millions of American every day of the week. All of this came on top of repeated and very public incidents of drunkenness, infidelity to his various wives, and unapologetic enthusiasm for alcohol and drug abuse, porn stars and prostitutes.
Oh yes: he’s a habitual abuser of his spouses and girlfriends, one who spent last Christmas in jail for holding a knife to his wife’s throat. Only the vile Hollywood tradition of celebrity justice accounts for the fact that he isn’t in jail right now.
But Sheen is a big story; he has buzz. His reaction to the reasonable, and in fact overdue, loss of his multi-million dollar CBS gig was to become an around the clock crazy machine, churning out egomaniacal quotes and delusional declarations. So his former network’s reaction is: “Oh my God! We can still make money out of this guy!” And thus they want to hire him back, undoubtedly at even more money, and place this indelible message on the American cultural billboard:
Values and conduct don’t matter. You should still applaud a betraying, wife-beating, lawless, arrogant and ungrateful jerk, because all that really matters in this country is being rich and famous. If the most productive members of your business and staff behave horribly, violate your rules, and show disrespect for everyone in sight, ignore it: rules and manners are only for the chumps, hacks and slackers. And if we enable Charlie Sheen enough to accelerate the emotional and physical breakdown that is almost certainly looming, that’s all right too—because it is acceptable to use and exploit people for financial gain—and besides, we all know he deserves it.
I’m hoping Sheen, who is severely nuts, will overplay his hand and demand too much money, or that Sheen’s fellow cast members will announce that he can be in “One Revolting Man,” all by himself, because they want nothing to do with him. Or that he ends the suspense and has that nervous breakdown, and gets some help before CBS’s disgusting plans can reach fruition. None of that, however, will erase what CBS chief Les Moonves has already revealed about himself and the network he heads. They have no standards except profit, and they are willing to make Americans think just like them.
And Charlie, of course.
________________________
UPDATE: Now sources are saying that the story was bogus. I don’t trust anybody regarding the Sheen saga at this point. Even me.
Treat the post as a hypothetical. I’m still not certain CBS didn’t try to get Warners to patch things up, and I think my assessment of CBS’s values are probably accurate. As of now, however, it didn’t happen. My apologies.
Ethics Alarms 
If Jon Cryer and that kid whose name I can’t remember DID come back without a fight, would that be unethical, or could they escape culpability if they just want things to return to normal?
I think a suitable punishment for Charlie Sheen would trying to pretend he’s cuddly and family friendly again and forced to say all those terrible jokes 2 1/2 Men foists upon an undeserving world. (Maybe it would only work as punishment if he was paid scale.)
His cast can come back ethically—they have no obligation to give up their jobs because CBS is amoral and Sheen is selfish jackass. It would exemplary if they took a stand, though….the equivalent of a government official resigning to wash his hands of bad policy. How often do we see THAT, any more?
CBS can rehire Charlie Sheen-They have no obligation to give up their money because Sheen is amoral and a selfish jackass.
Also, I ridicule Alcoholics Anonymous. It’s a cult that tries to clean people up by lying to them. (Yes, lying is the appropriate term for AA.)
The AA comment is just ignorant. Some people use AA in a cult-like manner: that doesn’t make it a cult. No other method of treating alcoholism has proved as effective. It’s a support group that teaches and reinforces basic ethical principles like accountability, humility, responsibility and diligence. It makes no false representations that I can identify. What lies? Have you ever attended an AA meeting? If so it must ahve been that Evil AA, which is more properly called EAA.
Public organizations that influence public values have an obligation to be responsible and not to present objectively despicable people as “stars.”
Yes, AA does all the things you say…by claiming that God demands it. Accountibility to God, humility to God, responsibility to God’s children, etc…
Beyond that, AA makes the false representation that you need God to abstain from your addictions.
Public people that influence public values have an obligation to be responsible and not to validate objectively despicable people as “stars”
Untrue. Very untrue. Every one of the (many) AA goers I know, save one, are as agnostic as you are. AA’s literature references God, but does not depend on God, and the “higher power” it refers to is entirely personal and subjective. I heard one AA devotee refer to AA’s God to mean “Gathering Of Drunks.”
The higher power is supposed to be Jesus Christ. That many people do not follow that in no way changes what it is.
Referring to a higher power at all, even a secular one, is also contrary to my philosophy. If you can find a way to marriage responsibility and accountability while taking an extral locus of control and referencing a higher power, I’d like to see it.
1. Who says it is “supposed” to be Jesus Christ? Yes, the founder of AA looked at it that way, but the evolved organization does not.
2. So it’s contrary to your philosophy—so don’t use it. If it keeps people out of the gutter and morgue using a philos0phy they can use, that’s cool utilitarianism.
3. This is simple chaos theory: a higher power is nothing but a linear constant to guide one through chaotic systems. Does your philosophy also reject airplane navigation systems?
1) Next you’re going to tell me that Intelligent Design movement is also not about the christian god.
2) And if it teaches people to be mindless robots in the process or just that there is a Higher Power guiding their actions, I think it’s uncool utilitarianism
3) A “Higher Power” is not a “higher power”. I also have no idea what a linear constant is, and why anyone should be guiding. An airplane navigation system is in no way like the Higher Power referenced.
Actually, it’s exactly like an airplane navigation system. All linear constants work, including religion, in a chaotic system, which accurately defines an alcoholic’s life. I’m running to catch a plane, so I can’t explain that right now, but a will, I promise.
Someone designs a system X to do job Y. It does that job objectively and objectively well. Comparing “relying upon this X to do Y” to “surrending to a subjective God to guide one’s actions” seems doomed, but I’m looking forward to it.
Quote marks are used for clarity, not as citation.
tgt: I think you know not whereof you speak — Alcoholics Anonymous is NOT a “cult”, and I don’t know what “lies” you are talking about — would you like to be a little more specific?
The word “cult” is usually applied to religious groups. While many in AA do pray daily and speak about recovery thru their “Higher Power” , it is not a requirement. Your complaint sounds much like those heard from people who tried AA, then gave up when the abstinence got too uncomfortable.
My “AA birthday” will be this coming April 17th — 30 years without a drink of alcohol. My home group is far from a “cult”. It is called “We Agnostics”. Its only purpose is to assure suffering alcoholics that they CAN find sobriety in AA without having to accept anyone else’s beliefs, nor to deny their own.
Give AA another try. Keep coming back; it works (if you work it).
Congratulations twofold. First on being sober, and second on finding a meeting group that is willing to concentrate on sobriety directly, and not on religious enforced sobriety.
While it may be considered a chapter of AA, by not giving your life to God, you are directly violating the tenets of AA. Similar to your membership to AA (I know that’s not quite right, but it’s close enough), I can say I am a member of the Roman Catholic church.
I want to be clear that I’m not denigrating sobriety or groups that help people become sober or remain sober. I’m not attacking the basic ideas of sharing, mutual support, and responsibility. I’m attacking AA and the religion that is inherent and required for all AA groups. Read the 12 tenets at some point, and tell me it’s not a cult again.
I presume TGT is talking about Step 3 and Tradition 2 of the 12 Steps and 12 Traditions. Let’s clear Step 3 first: “Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to God AS WE UNDERSTOOD HIM.” (My caps). That’s the “higher power” they’re always talking about, and nobody in AA can dictate what that means. For many years I had a “Power greater than myself”, and his name was John Barleycorn.
There are many atheists and agnostics in AA who will tell you that their Higher Power is the group itself — the love, support and acceptance they find there.
It doesn’t have to be a capital “G” God, though many use that term for convenience.
Then Tradition 2: “For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority, a loving God as he may express himself in our group conscience; our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.”
Once again, capital “G” God for convenience. Nobody in AA can define that for you; there is no “inherent and required” description.
Many groups begin or end their meetings with the famous Serenity Prayer. Mine does not. I have found all AA groups I’ve ever visited to be the most tolerant and accepting people in the world. Sure, you will find a few of what we call “bleeding deacons” who try to insist their Way is the only Way. But they have no authority.
I’ve been in meetings where people said things like, “I’m sober today because Jesus is my savior”, and others said things like, “There is no God and I hate him”, and nobody threw coffee cups at them.
“Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to God AS WE UNDERSTOOD HIM.” (My caps). That’s the “higher power” they’re always talking about, and nobody in AA can dictate what that means. For many years I had a “Power greater than myself”, and his name was John Barleycorn.
So, the higher power is supposed to be God, by your own definition. Capitalized God is in the christian tradition. That you used someone else as your higher power in no way changes what the intent is and what you are supposed to do.
There are many atheists and agnostics in AA who will tell you that their Higher Power is the group itself — the love, support and acceptance they find there.
So these atheists and agnostics are not following the program. The entire program is based on giving your life to God as a necessary condition. That some people do it without God just points out how horrible AA is for making their program dependent on God.
As I said in response to Jack, I don’t see how a higher power can match with responsibility and accountability unless the higher power has control over what occurs and not the individual. If you can make it work, good for you, but it’s still incompatible on its face.
It doesn’t have to be a capital “G” God, though many use that term for convenience.
…
Once again, capital “G” God for convenience. Nobody in AA can define that for you; there is no “inherent and required” description.
Not for convenience. Because the organization was created with specific religious intent. Your capitalization of Higher Power also references capitalized God directly. This is religious.
Many groups begin or end their meetings with the famous Serenity Prayer. Mine does not. I have found all AA groups I’ve ever visited to be the most tolerant and accepting people in the world. Sure, you will find a few of what we call “bleeding deacons” who try to insist their Way is the only Way. But they have no authority.
I find my parent’s church to be tolerant and accepting. Hey, I dot married in the Catholic Church and became a godfather a couple weeks ago, and I didn’t have to lie to do it. Is the Catholic Church no longer religious?
I’ve been in meetings where people said things like, “I’m sober today because Jesus is my savior”, and others said things like, “There is no God and I hate him”, and nobody threw coffee cups at them.
You are equating individual attendees and specific group organizers’ basic civility with the inherent tenets of AA. I don’t see your example as attacking my point in the slightest.
My apologies for messing up the cite. And also for going so far off thread.
“Capitalized God is in the christian tradition.” It’s also in the Jewish tradition and in the Muslim tradition (though many use the Arabic word for God,”Allah”). And perhaps others I’m not aware of.
And true, we’ve wandered far afield. But I could not ignore an attack on AA which varied 180 degrees from my own knowledge and experience, and which said group saved my life and (alleged) sanity. Have a good day.
True, capitalized God is in the monotheistic tradition as applying to each’s one true god. For AA, that just so happens to be christianity.
Also, I don’t see anything in my attack that has been contradicted by the experiences you’ve provided.
I think some of the point might have been that institutions tend to outgrow their original vision, even if what’s on paper has barely changed; hence, AA now caters to people of all sorts of religious and philosophical beliefs, despite its original Christian aim.
TGT, go to a dictionary and look up John Barleycorn. It’s not a “someone”, it’s a “something”.
Ah. Well, that makes sense, but doesn’t really change my point.
At the risk of returning to the original thread . . .
Isn’t Radaronline in the same league with the National Enquirer? Weren’t they the first to publicize (& then retract in about 15 minutes) the bogus report of John Roberts’ resignation? It’s not that I don’t believe CBS management capable of such an asinine move as re-hiring Charlie Sheen, but I think I’d rather see a more reliable report of it first.
It’s a real report (I saw it on CNN and FoxNews.)
It’s not that CBS is trying to hire him back, it’s that Les Moonves wants to mend the ship and get everyone back to work.
No, it is…see my comment to Tom.
It’s a legitimate point, though that site is pretty reliable on TV stuff: this from Reuters today, one of over 700 sources for ths tory listed on Google now:
“Charlie Sheen may be out of a job, for now. But according to reports swirling on Monday the actor may be back on television sooner rather than later.
NBC News quoted sources close to Sheen as saying that CBS had offered the actor back his job on the hit comedy “Two and A Half Men”, but no deal had been struck and discussions were ongoing.
Elsewhere, The Hollywood Reporter said Sheen met with senior executives at rival network Fox last week for talks. The actor sent a cryptic Tweet over the weekend reading “perhaps a new lair…? A Fox and a Warlock? epic” accompanied by a picture of a Fox television logo.
Sheen was fired from “Two and A Half Men,” the most-watched TV comedy in the United States, on March 7 after a stream of public insults toward its producer, Chuck Lorre.”