“I’m just going to say one thing. Fuck Trump! It’s no longer ‘Down with Trump.’ It’s ‘fuck Trump!’”
—Actor Robert De Niro on live TV at the Tonys last night.
Then he pumped both fists in the air, as a large contingent of the crowd of Broadway glitterati at Radio City Music Hall stood and gave him a standing ovation, endorsing the gutter insult.
I believe such un-American conduct creates an ethical obligation on the part of fair and reasonable American to demonstrate their contempt and opposition, in as strong and decisive a manner possible.
What that means is beyond my ability to suggest right now. I don’t like to write when I am angry, and I am angry. But this must not stand.
Yesterday, commenting on the unethical Tony Awards scheduling of De Niro, who has used other appearances to make vulgar, hateful, ad hominem attacks on the President, I wrote in part,
“If you invite Robert De Niro, you are deliberately announcing that your event is going to be politically divisive and include an attack, probably uncivil, on the President—and while he will be engaged in crucial international negotiations. The President has nothing to do with the Tonys, nor does politics—the main contenders for top musicals are “SpongeBob” and “Mean Girls,” for heaven’s sakes—nor does De Niro, who is just one more movie star being used by Broadway to attract a larger TV audience.”
Naturally, CBS allowed this to go forward, because it was in search of ratings for the perpetually viewer-starved awards show. The network either knew or should have known that this meant that it would be broadcasting some kind of ugly episode. The network was accused of conspiring with Janet Jackson to flash her breast during the supposedly family-friendly Super Bowl half-time show—you know, back in those halcyon days when games didn’t include NFL players symbolically calling the US. racist as a prelude?—and swore that it had no idea anything inappropriate was going to happen. Well, it can’t make that claim now about De Niro. De Niro’s outburst is like the breast-bearing if Jackson had been flashing at every public appearance. CBS knew he was going to insult the President. It wanted him to insult the President.
I do not think CBS expected De Niro to go as far as he did, but that’s like saying you didn’t expect the grizzly bear you brought to the party to eat anyone, just to maul a few people.
CBS managed to mute De Niro sufficiently that amateur only lip-readers got the message, not that any idiot couldn’t guess it. The network signaled its own complicity by refusing to apologize to viewers and the President, stating through a spokesman only that “Mr. De Niro’s comments were unscripted and unexpected. The offensive language was deleted from the broadcast.”
As I said at the outset, I have to calm down and think about this situation—and it is a situation, not a single event—ethically and professionally before I feel can confident that I am not being controlled by anger. However, I can say with confidence that this cannot stand. Hollywood, Broadway, De Niro and “the resistance” must be punished for this behavior, and every patriotic, responsible American citizen should take part in the retribution. It ought to have nothing to do with whether one likes or approves of President Trump. This was a pure expression of mindless hatred directed toward our elected leader, and thus the institutions and the public that made him our leader , on national television, on a broadcast network, and the Broadway community loudly endorsed it. That act expressed hatred and disrespect toward many millions of Americans and our system of government before the world.
It was worse, far worse, than a D-level comic posing with a representation of the President’s severed head. It was worse than Samantha Bee declaring the President’s daughter a cunt on a cable broadcast. This is a tipping point, and it should be understood as one, requiring an organized, appropriate and lasting response.
Other comments:
- As readers here know, I am generally opposed to organized economic boycotts. Regular readers also know that all ethical generalities, rules and principles have exceptions.
This might be one.
- I have yet to read a negative comment on a blog or website about this episode that comes close to expressing the depth of my feelings. In general, the pervasive attitude seems to be, “Well, what do you expect?” and “Keep it up: this is how you get more Trump.!” This is a mistake. I don’t care about “more Trump.” I want a better, unified, ethical, free and democratic nation, and De Niro’s comments, and the disgusting Broadway reaction to it, leads away from that goal, and undermines it.
That is why this must not be shrugged off or minimized.
- Did I neglect to mention yet that Robert De Niro is a boorish, unintelligent, inarticulate asshole who represents his professional every bit as badly as Kevin Spacey, just in a different way?
I’m sorry: He’s an asshole.
There.
De Niro is now on my Alec Baldwin/ Stephen Colbert list. I can’t watch him any more, no matter what role he’s playing, because his ugly character shines through. That’s it for “Godfather II” and “Goodfellas.” Too bad.
- I have many longtime, close friends in the acting community who are generous, loving, smart and talented people. Most of them live in a cocoon, however, and their political positions tend to be peer-generated, shallow, knee-jerk and uninformed. I’m not reading any comments about this on Facebook, because doing so will disappoint and depress me, and because at this moment I can’t guarantee that I won’t give full reign to my usually suppressed talent for abusive invective when some otherwise nice person announces that they agree with De Niro and rack up a thousand likes and loves.
They won’t like me when I’m angry. I don’t like me when I’m angry.
- “Angels in America” playwright Tony Kushner told reporters backstage that be “agreed” with De Niro, saying, “This person should not be anywhere near the seat of power.”
One more time for the ignorant, arrogant and stubborn: Yes, in fact “this person” should, because he was elected under the system our nation-defining Constitution requires. The fact that the “resistance’ and so many progressives and Democrats refuse to acknowledge, or are incapable of acknowledging that basic facts shows that they are the real threat to democracy and the nation.
Ethics Alarms 
Phase out the TV watching, Jack, before you have a stroke.
I forgot to say “please.”
Penn has a point. I am very careful with what shows I spend my admittedly limited TV watching budget on.
I am collecting the Stargate series and watching them in order this year. My wife expressed an interest in Battlestar Galactica, which we already own, and so that is in the mix.
CSI season 1 has recently become available, and we are recording that.
Other shows are non political, or at least funny without the nasty anti-Trump stuff.
Of course, network news of any stripe was forgone years ago.
This came as no surprise as you predicted. What was shocking – or maybe not so – was the enthusiastic response to the infantile snit.
Definitely not so.
They are inciting a war. Plain and simple.
Ding ding ding.
You win.
No, we all lose. Because they cannot grow up and deal with losing, like five-year-olds turning blue and drumming their feet.
”Because they cannot grow up and deal with losing”
I recall some MLB pitcher claiming, after a particularly brutal outing, saying:
“You can’t deal with winning until you’ve dealt with losing.”
The whole modus operandi of the left has been to push and push and push the system to the breaking point. Use all the legally protected means to do so, so that there can be no consequence.
Break the system so it can be replaced with their utopia.
They really really really thought, after 8 years of Obama, the country was at a fork in the road and their revolution was to be completed without completely breaking the system.
They didn’t win at that decision point. So now the actions to break the system are amped up to one notch below actually starting the coming civil war.
Of course, there is nowhere to go for them from here, because they lack the accountability and honesty to turn back and they hate the American system so deeply they will never accept following it except in the instance it gets them power.
When they start the riots they have planned, they may find that civil disobedience carries a cost, when you threaten common American lives.
The root solution to this is to cut the copyright period down to match the patent period. Don’t let these media behemoths continue to amass wealth and power.
As the holder of many patents, I agree The disparity is indefensible, they exist for similar reasons. Not only would this be retribution, it would be righting an unethical situation.
(shrug) There is no difference between this and inviting Dan Savage to address a gathering of students. The organizers knew damn well what they were getting and chose to obtain it. Frankly, after two profane rants already, a third one is tedious, not anger-producing.
You don’t see a material difference between a standing ovation after a direct insult on a worldwide broadcast, and couple of comments at minor, local awards ceremonies where the crowd was mildly embarrassed?
I sure do. I think this is a slow-boiling frog situtation. (I know that’s a myth…).
The Tony’s? They still have them? They’re broadcast on TV? By a legacy network? In prime time? People other than Broadway insiders watch them?
That being said, you’re right. It’s a terrible situation. These elites have become completely unhinged. I can only hope they continue until they have completely marginalized themselves from the people in the country who work and raise their kids and pay taxes.
I hope the FCC hits CBS with a big fine. Maybe a few billion, like the fines levied against the banks by the Obama administration to fund “neighborhood projects.”
Given who the audience was composed of, not really enough to make a big difference. It’s been known that the arts community and Hollywood loathed the president from the day of his inauguration, when he had to scrounge to find performers for his inaugural gala. I do think there is some building frustration as the administration doesn’t do a face plant and starts to get things done, and if this year’s “blue wave” fails to materialize or isn’t enough to put the Democratic Party in a position to impeach Trump, then I do think you will see some crazy activity on the left, possibly even an assassination attempt.
If the Secret Service announced that it was going on holiday, Trump would be assassinated tomorrow.
… and the riots would REALLY begin. Pence would be in charge.
These gatherings of Leftists increasingly look like the 2 Minutes Hate that Orwell describes in 1984. How am I to distinguish average run of the mill leftists from sheep anymore and how am I to distinguish high ranking leftists from handlers?
Not that certain elements of the right aren’t getting there as well.
Thanks for the entree, because I was dying to write this: High minded liberal commenters here making dramatic and indignant exits while decrying a “fever” in my focusing on sinister tactics by anti-Trump forces look highly hypocritical in light of such conduct by their ideological compatriots, like the Tonys audience.
Yeah, I’m still angry…
You have a right to be.
The nation is still at a fork in the road. Hanging on the edge of a precipice. Falling off that edge leaves us in an unrecoverable canyon.
And even some of the efforts to oppose the Left at this point could cause the kind of instability to pushes us off the edge, right into the chasm the Left wants.
I think cooler heads will prevail. People go to work, they buy groceries, fuel their cars, pay their mortgage and rent. I think the radical left may simply dissipate.
From your, er, fingers to God’s ears, er, eyes.
Other Bill has a great point. Maybe the Republic isn’t so doomed. Isn’t this what drove the 2016 elections results anyway? Middle Class and Middle America simply voted the way the coasts thoroughly overlooked and took for granted. Those hayseeds in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia ate their breakfasts, went to work, cast their ballots and quietly told the Robert De Niros of the world, “No, Bob. Fuck you!”
jvb
I think we need to step away from the computer or the i phone or i pad or newspaper or whatever from time to time, John. I wish there were some way to determine what percentage of the population and what number of people don’t tune in to any of what we worry about here. The things we talk about are important but perhaps the great unwashed will provide the necessary ballast and keep the ship steaming along. For example, as screwed up as higher education has become, at least they’re still turning out doctors and engineers, thus keeping us alive and, for the most part, safe. Maybe we take ourselves and our concerns too seriously some times.
Agreed. Perhaps we should take a break and watch, “O Brother, Where art Thou” for a good laugh.
jvb
Dan “Big Dan” Teague would’ve told you: “You don’t say much my friend, but when you do it’s to the point, and I salute you for it!”
And so long as you’re taking that break, give a listen to that marvelous soundtrack!
I tend to agree, Bill. The nation survived the late ’60s/early 70’s period when there were nationwide riots and actual leftist radical terrorists setting off bombs. We don’t seem to be at that stage again just yet. The antifa idiots might break a few windows, but it’s nothing like the burning cities of 1968.
I think the internet is a blessing and a curse in this regard. It allows those who are inclined to follow such things to take in unlimited coverage of the latest outrage (no matter which side you’re on). That makes things seem like a much bigger deal than they actually are. On the flip side, it provides a relief valve for hostility that in an earlier age might have been expressed with physical violence. People shoot their mouths off saying incredibly nasty stuff on Twitter and Facebook, then go back to sipping their fair-trade vegan soy latte and watching the Kardashians’ latest antics, content in the knowledge that their brilliant words have no doubt changed the world.
Certainly there are some who fancy themselves true revolutionaries who are dedicated to “the cause”, but they seem to have a hard time recruiting the mass of cannon fodder needed for any kind of real action.
I mean, heck, they couldn’t even turn out enough voters in places like Wisconsin or Michigan to beat Trump, how are they going to amass an army of revolutionaries to take to the streets?
This is how they get those rioters…
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/politics/mueller-firing-rallies-trnd/index.html
Aah. Let ’em eat cake. They can march on Washington or whatever. Frankly, I doubt Trump is dumb enough to fire Mueller. But you never know. I think he just keeps plugging away doing pretty impressive things and let’s Mueller do what he’s going to do. I would NOT allow him to be interviewed by Mueller. Who in their right mind EVER talks to the Feds? It’s nothing but a lying to the Feds trap. I don’t even call it perjury. I wonder if it should even be a crime? Since when is lying to the cops a crime? Why aren’t convicted felons prosecuted for lying to the court when they plead innocent? What’s so special about the Feds? J. Edgar must have gotten someone he had the goods on to get that through Congress and signed into law.
The war has been far less overt than the burning and rioting in the 60s. This has been a psychological and sociological guerilla war which has only recently been brought into the light as academia, the news media, and the Democrat party are exposed as the, essentially monolithic, Alinskyite resistance against the Constitution. We shall see if ranting becomes rioting under the newly shining bright lights.
Michael West wrote, “And even some of the efforts to oppose the Left at this point could cause the kind of instability to pushes us off the edge, right into the chasm the Left wants.”
I’ve heard it said that the Progressives, the anti-Trump resistance, and social justice warriors are like alcoholics but addicted to their own illogical delusions; so is opposing them enabling them or intentionally driving them to “drink”?
This the point of their extremity. To create an incident where the right or moderates respond and then are portrayed as the perpetrators of all evil. (As if it has transpired in a socio-political vacuum.) They thought Charlottesville was that moment. It wasn’t, because most see through their provocations and have an inkling of their motivations.
Thus, their exhortations continue to ratchet ever higher.
Where and when is the straw breaking the camel’s back going to be placed? Not sure. Maybe never.
Like Slick, I expect the results will be, at least temporarily, decisive. Where the dominoes fall from there is anyone’s guess. What a horrible mess Alinsky and his followers have made of our once nearly universally envied experiment.
It’s mob thinking, or what I like to call, Monkey See, Monkey Do Hive Mindedness.
The “progressives” have already started the chanting phase of their evil ritual. (I hate political chanting.) It’s reaching the culmination point, where any remaining semblance of reason departs and the mind-control mantra takes over. Forbidden Reputation Mindset Technique: Scapegoat! They’ve succeeded in cultivating the idea that the source of all misfortune that befalls historically oppressed minority groups is that they are still being oppressed, rather than that they may be holding themselves back like regular humans do. They have also managed to establish that the progressives can help them by passing all sorts of laws, but only the evil conservatives, who represent the oppressors, stand in their way.
I may have to re-share my Politician Noises article on Facebook. I don’t think this is worse polarization than last century, but I’d rather not have a repeat of that, and social media tends to amplify such things.
Please do.
Too bad DeNiro’s gone to the Dark Side. One of his (IMHO) better performances was paired with Marlon Brando’s last, in The Score.
He suffers from chronic potty-mouth of late, which anyone that’s sat through Dirty Grandpa will understand.
Interesting line from that flick: when his grandson (Zac Ephron) shows up to play golf in some goofy-looking ensemble and asks how he looks:
Ephron: “How do I look, Dirty Grandpa?”
DeNiro: “Like the keynote speaker at a buttfucking convention.”
Just spit up my lunch….. totally excellent.
Wait—your lunch, your spit-up lunch, what?
I wonder if DeNiro is on record anywhere complaining about Trump saying things like “Shithole” or “Grab ’em by the pussy” . . . .
Even if not, EVERYONE who applauds or agrees with DeNiro here is forever estopped from complaining about the President’s use of crude language, past present or future.
–Dwayne
Had I been in the audience, I would probably have given DeNiro the finger, because however much I agree with the sentiment, that wasn’t the right time and place for it, with the predictable result that everyone is telling me about DeNiro’s speech, and no one is telling me who won a Tony. (Apparently “The Band’s Visit” did well.)
On the other hand, it is hardly “un-American” to insult the President. The right to criticize our elected officials is a key requirement for democracy. Sorry you don’t like the language. And saying “This person should not be anywhere near the seat of power,” is a perfectly reasonable opinion, especially about someone who may be up for re-election. The fact that Trump was elected doesn’t mean that he should have power, it only means that he does have power. These are different rhetorical concepts.
You want a “better, unified, ethical, free and democratic nation”? Well, “unified” and “free” are going to be at cross purposes. This is what that looks like.
I can’t believe so many people make this argument. It is un-American to undermine the President, strip him of the dignity of the office, and deny the institution that placed him in office.
What would have happened to anyone who did what De Niro did to Obama? A rodeo clown was fired for wearing an Obama mask..firing him was un-American, because it wasn’t even an insult.
“Fuck the President” on national TV is acceptable political discourse? No, you say. OK: why? Because as a nation, we support the President, whoever he is, especially when he is doing our work, like that little confab in Singapore. Would it really have been “American” to go on live radio and say “Fuck Roosevelt” when he was meeting with Churchill and Stalin?
This is nothing but a “Trump doesn’t deserve the same standards the nation has applied to every other President because without those standards, he can’t do his job” argument, Windy.
Jack got there first.
Windy, if the President in question were Obama, this would be unacceptable. Think of all the times legitimate opposition was labeled ‘racist’ toward the Anointed One.
That was just as dumb as calling Trump’s opponents un-American.
At least you are consistent.
There’s a substantive difference between DeNiro, a clear and wide reaching spokesman, saying such vile things about the President and any one random shmoe who said something that vile about Obama.
There’s a substantive difference between what DeNiro said, and what ANYONE on the right who has equal clout as DeNiro before an equal audience receiving the exact same endorsement from such an audience that DeNiro received.
DeNiro & his audience are un-American and it’s fair to label them that way, while it is completely unfair to label an equal spokesperson and his audience un-American for anything they said about Obama, because the acidity NEVER rose that high against Obama in the mainstream sectors of the Right.
I don’t know how this even needs to be explained.
Those who want to apologize, normalize or disregard the mess the resistance has made, since it promotes how they themselves feel, use this tactic to say that the left and right are the same.
This is gaslighting. They are NOT the same.
“Because as a nation, we support the President, whoever he is, especially when he is doing our work, like that little confab in Singapore.”
No. We’re not his employees. We’re not troops under his command. We don’t owe him blind support. I despised Trump as a person before he ever ran for office, I despise many of his policies, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise just because he got elected. I’m certainly not going to pretend to support Trump so he can impress a foreign tyrant. That would be idiotic.
“It is un-American to undermine the President,”
People who work in Trump’s administration shouldn’t be trying to undermine him. The rest of us are free to act in our own interests, Trump be damned.
“strip him of the dignity of the office,”
I’ve reached the point where I no longer believe in things like respecting the office. It sounds like a reasonable thing to say, but I don’t think it makes sense. Oh, sure, you should “respect” the office in terms of acknowledging the power and authority that comes with it, but the person holding the office does not thereby become more respectable in the other sense of the word. An asshole in office is still an asshole.
“Would it really have been ‘American’ to go on live radio and say ‘Fuck Roosevelt’ when he was meeting with Churchill and Stalin?”
If you thought he was really hurting America? Sure.
How did you feel about Clinton, when he was POTUS?
It’s hard to remember in detail. At the time, the issue that most concerned me was the War on Drugs. After Reagan and Bush ramped it up so much, I expected that a Democrat like Clinton would be a return to sanity in national drug policy. I was sorely disappointed and pretty angry. I didn’t follow the personal scandals that much and found them a distraction from my interest in policy, which is not the same as saying I would forgive them. I really don’t care who Trump slept with either, as long as it was consensual. Clinton said a lot of crazy things about economics, but I seem to recall that the actual policies weren’t too bad. In retrospect, the Clinton presidency was a time of relative peace and prosperity, but I don’t think he deserves much of the credit for that.
I thought so.
Would it be fair to say you have had an apathetic attitude towards POTUS up to now? I am not being snarky, just scratching an itch with someone willing to engage.
American in general are apathetic about politics, and they have allowed us to slide to Trump as POTUS as a result.
I’m more of a policy wonk, so I have not been terribly interested in the personal qualities of our presidents in general. If I thought their policies wouldn’t be too bad, I could put up with a reasonable amount of venality and corruption. (This may be the result of growing up in Chicago, where saying no to venality and corruption was never on the ballot.) And even the policies have to be taken in context. Bad policy ideas don’t matter if Congress won’t let them happen.
Trump, however, did not articulate a lot of policies during the election, and his personality problems loom large. I’ve had a few brushes with narcissists and sociopaths, and Trump rings all those bells for me in a very bad way. I actually agree with some of his policies as enacted, such as reducing corporate taxes, school choice, and the idea of deregulation (although the devil is in the details). But I still worry a lot about having a wrecking ball like him for President.
The biggest problem with apathy about politics is that it makes complete sense on the individual level. If we took the time we spend discussing politics and spent it on, say, training to be better at our jobs, or learning a new hobby, it would lead to a much greater improvement in the quality of our lives than paying attention to who’s in office. But if everybody does it…
I have a working hypothesis that evil is winning because good people are doing nothing. Civic duty is falling derelict.
Character matters. In Trump’s case (may his twitter account be revoked!) it is being used against those who used to say character did not matter (it was just sex, it worked, didn’t it, and so on)
Trump is the perfect trolling act of the American public upon the Elite Establishment.
Is evil “winning because good people are doing nothing” or is it because good people are being beaten into submission for standing up for what is good? Religion and religious beliefs? Archaic and anachronisms better left to the history books – just bake the friggin’ cake and be on your way. Who needs some jealous sky god anyway? Moral imperatives? Nope. Everything is subjective and relative. Ethics? Who cares? The ends justify the means. Gender? There are 54 of them, last time I checked Facebook. Race? Although race trumps everything in the social justice warrior battle book, race is merely a social construct created by white supremacists to subjugate the masses.
It seems that the most radical viewpoint one can have, and stand up for, is a Judeo-Christian belief that we are all created in God’s image and should seek to do God’s will on this Earth, hoping for a chance to Heaven’s Holy Estate on Judgment Day.
jvb
” Clinton said a lot of crazy things about economics, but I seem to recall that the actual policies weren’t too bad.”
Yeah, they were good as Goldman, am I right?
The FSMA repealed Glass-Steagall.
The CFMA deregulated derivitives.
Riegle-Neal severed the ‘nads of state regulation of interstate banks and a wave of consolidation.
It gets worse.
The Clintons and Wall Street: 24 Years of Enriching Each Other
From The Fearless Voice Of The American Left Since 1993:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/26/the-clintons-and-wall-street-24-years-of-enriching-each-other/
Time Magazine/2014: “Few in American history have collected and benefited from so much money in so many ways over such a long period of time…the Clintons have attracted at least $1.4 billion in contributions…”
”Time failed to dig deeply enough. A more thoroughly researched expose’ in the Washington Post a year later doubles the amount to $3 billion.” (bolds mine)
Shall I go on?
Spot on, Paul. Nice work. Glass Stegal repeal. What a disaster. Let’s have the taxpayers back up the boys at Goldman when they get too greedy and screw up big time. Brilliant!
Forgot to add the 1998 LTCM bailout, & the 2000 dotcom bubble going KERSPLOOOOEY..
Next time any of your Lefty friends slobber effusively about the Clintonistas leaving a surplus, fill them in with a few painful facts.
Windypundit,
Am I correct to conclude from your rant that you’ve never been in the Military.
It’s apparent that true respect is something you don’t fully understand.
Sleep well knowing that hive-mindedness, like yours, is what’s destroying the United States.
You’re correct, I’ve never served in the military. But I don’t think the relationship between military commanders and their subordinates is a good model for the relationship between the President and the American people. The military is not a democracy.
Windypundit wrote, “But I don’t think the relationship between military commanders and their subordinates is a good model for the relationship between the President and the American people. The military is not a democracy.”
Admit it Windypundit, my point about you not fully understanding respect blew completely over your head.
Must be, because as far as I could tell, your comment had no point.
Wrongwrongwrong.And also illogical.
“Fuck the President” is just hate. It’s speech, and it’s not illegal, but it’s hate, and designed to foment hate. Hating the nation, the flag, our instututions and the President is anti-American, and thus un-American. Being an opponent of America and its traditions and values are un-American. The truth hurts. The judo of calling correctly diagnosing un-American conduct as un-American is not persuasive. In fact, it’s a dodge.
“I’ve reached the point where I no longer believe in things like respecting the office.” Well, then you have abandoned the basis on which democracy works, and have no standing in this issue, since you reject the basic premise.
But your answer at the end is consistent. And that version of how citizens should act would result in the downfall of any democratic government.
Just a couple of sentences after that part you quote, I wrote “you should ‘respect’ the office in terms of acknowledging the power and authority that comes with it.” That’s the actual basis of democracy, not immunity from criticism.
“And that version of how citizens should act would result in the downfall of any democratic government.”
Whereas placing leaders on a pedestal, above criticism, has never been bad for democracy?
“Fuck you” is not criticism, and you know very well that I have never shied away from criticizing any President.
Shifting the goalposts, and unsurprisingly, since “Fuck the President” on TV and in a public forum, is indefensible.
How much of this is Hollywood lashing out as it senses it is increasingly irrelevant to more and more people’s lives?
I mean, though they still produce one or two truly compelling stories and truly artistic works once in a blue moon, they aren’t nearly the captivating legend makers they used to be. Do you think they know their usefulness to the world of art is currently waning and this lashing out may be, in part, somewhat akin to a desperate grab for anything to make a spectacular narrative?
(yes of course this temper tantrum they have been throwing has been decades in the making because they are still faithful to their own failed leftist worldview which is anathematic to the American Republic, but I wonder if a substantial part of it them feeling their diminishing value to the national discourse?)
Michael West wrote, “How much of this is Hollywood lashing out as it senses it is increasingly irrelevant to more and more people’s lives?”
I don’t think it’s that at all.
I think they’re exercising their egotistical (I can get away with whatever the fuck I want because I’m a celebrity) status and trying to inspire a Monkey See, Monkey Do Hive Mindedness mob mentality from their flock. They are abusing their status as celebrities and it’s eventually going to destroy their own marketability in the industry and likely do serious damage to the industry as a whole.
Their choices, their consequences.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the entertainment industry.
A standing ovation to “Fuck Trump” gets a fuck the entire entertainment industry in return. As far as I’m concerned they are all going to pay the price for abuse of their celebrity status, disrespect they show for those they oppose, their unchecked hate, and their constant enabling of unethical behavior. I have better things to do than enable these morally bankrupt political hacks. Last night I decided that I’m down to only watching my couple of news choices and then I’m walking away from the TV; I respect my wife’s apolitical choice to continue to watch whatever she wants. I didn’t watch very much anyway. The treadmill, the honey-do list, the man-cave, and the local range will be getting more attention, heck maybe it’s time to get back into some competition shooting.
Like I said, I have no doubt that the bulk of this rabid ongoing outburst is primarily driven by their spokesmanship for leftism in America and how they see themselves as an insurgency against an invented enemy.
It’s just odd seeing an aging star during the setting of his own personal sun engaging in this level of virulent rhetoric, and my gut says that there is a littler more to this than *just* ideological combativeness.
You respect the office because you respect the entire apparatus. To what extent you may be unhappy with the apparatus…the means to change it is built into it.
No one gets to flip over the game board and spit on it just because they don’t like whichever player is winning at the moment.
Windypundit wrote, “I’m certainly not going to pretend to support Trump so he can impress a foreign tyrant. That would be idiotic.”
Not supporting the President of the United States when he’s trying to prevent a nuclear war with a rogue nation is “idiotic”. Seriously Windypundit, do you bother to reread to the shit that you write before you post it? Maybe you should read it aloud so you can get the same WTF effect we get.
Windypundit wrote, “I’ve reached the point where I no longer believe in things like respecting the office. It sounds like a reasonable thing to say, but I don’t think it makes sense. Oh, sure, you should “respect” the office in terms of acknowledging the power and authority that comes with it, but the person holding the office does not thereby become more respectable in the other sense of the word. An asshole in office is still an asshole.”
So you don’t respect the office of the President and you don’t respect the person in the office. In light of the Trump-Kim summit that just took place, have you changed your mind about your very selective use of respect?
I look forward to reading your detailed opinion blog about the Trump-Kim summit.
Why be selective; why not just boycott the entire entertainment industry.
Wrong word bold, it was supposed to be the word entire. 😦
I’ve avoided award shows for over a decade. I rarely know much of the nominees and I can look at the pretty clothing if I feel the urge later. Political stunts started annoying me long before I stopped. I’m not sure why people watch them anymore, I have many more useful ways to spend an evening, like take a nap.
Ugh. My gut was right. The way people acted on the left scared me far worse than Trump did.
I never imagined they’d keep doing this stuff. The arrogance they hold is so huge. It’s fear based which is why it’s so dangerous. They hide their fear with anger.
Trying to find compassion. And love. It is what we need more of.
Wow. Stunned.
Same old shit with never posting on the first try as has happened on the computer at the Government work site…
[NOTE: I wrote this comment Monday morning, but can no longer post from the computer that I use most of the day and night.]
Oh? The Tony awards were on TV last night (Sunday night)?
[sincerely chuckling – I had no idea]
I was watching something last night (Sunday night) on the History Channel, about Kim Jong Un. Laughed at the mention that his “private jet” that he uses to fly to a number of his 17 palaces scattered about N. Korea is nicknamed “Air Force Un.” One of the last things said on the…I believe it was a 2-hour program, was that the U.S. – really, the rest of the sane world, not just the U.S. – faces nothing but a list of very bad choices, one or more of which the world will have no choice but to make, to successfully “tame” the Nork regime (a “crime syndicate,” it was called – and I think that’s accurate). There simply are ZERO non-catastrophic options for the whole world, for what can be (and MUST be) done, to: tame the Nork nuclear weapons and missile technology ambitions; reduce military tensions on the peninsula; reduce overall North-South tensions; and prevent N. Korea from imploding into (1) a migration/genocide nightmare for China, and/or (2) a desperately starved and otherwise deprived and impoverished populace that dies off by the millions, and/or (3) a military-industrial criminality complex that, in its death-spasms, “blows its lethal wad” in every direction of the compass all at once, and/or… There were probably more eventualities mentioned, but three were all I could manage to pay attention to.
The left-right conflict within our own tenuous, dubious, ostensible national borders, here in middle North America (what I call, with increasing boldness and certitude, the “was-U.S.”), seems destined for a similar, damned-for-all-no-matter-what-anyone-does menu of catastrophic choices.
For my part, I really would like to be able to hunt down Robert DeNiro and personally administer to him a “fucking” that would out-fuck any fuck he could imagine Donald TRUMP receiving. But, I suppose the best I can do for DeNiro is to continue to ignore him, except for laughing at him whenever he somehow succeeds in drawing my attention.
Trump seems to have started the framework for the acceptance of NK into world society.
A miracle.
Yeah, I’m going to remain cautiously cynical on all things North Korea. They are a lying murderous dictatorship. Cold hard math says they have to collapse soon. They’ll do what they have to do to stall the inevitable.
I don’t like the optics of Trump approaching them as equals either.
Michael West wrote, “I don’t like the optics of Trump approaching them as equals either.”
I honestly don’t think Trump approached North Korea as “equals”, I think Trump approached North Korea from a position of overwhelming power that is willing to allow change based on North Korea’s actions. If North Korea want’s to become more “equal” with the rest of the world there are conditions, if they are willing and able to meet those conditions why not allow them to grow more “equal”?
You must begin somewhere.
Because of how things have transpired, I am willing to be cautiously optimistic instead of cautiously cynical.
I have no doubt that in the the private meetings Trump approached the table as the power broker and the one with all cards.
I also have no doubt that the public face of these meetings, hence my use of the word “optics”, were socially lubricated by making the meeting look like a gathering of equals.
I said I don’t like those optics, even if they end up being effective.
(And I’m going to remain cynical about whether or not they end up being effective)
‘Trust but verify.’
I don’t think Trump did this just for the optics of doing something. Just like Reagan, he knows his enemy and their history. American show of strength crumbles that enemy’s resolve.
We shall see.
I didn’t say that either. I did say I don’t like the optics of *the meeting* insomuch as how it has been conducted. I understand how and why. I don’t like it.
I am amused of course at the willingness of acolytes both left and right to retweet all the hot takes they can get their hands on. Never mind the hot takes are made by people who don’t have enough information out of this meeting to make a judgment one way or the other.
I’m almost embarrassed for some of them because by tomorrow their absolutely certainty will be shown to be wrong. So they’ll publish their next set of hot takes based purely on their biased spin of new info on not a clinical approach to the information.
Then they’ll be shown to be wrong again the next day the next week and the next month.
But still their loyalty knee jerk followers on twitter and the Internet will continue to repeat their drivel with aplomb.
I find it amusing that one of the things that the leftist legion on twitter is making fun of the most is apparently Trump showed Un a video of a simulated North Korea under capitalism- with development and prosperity.
“Oh that rube Trump… of course he’s showing Un videos of hotels and resorts…”
Sigh.
It’s really how we defeated the USSR… by flooding them with images of happy capitalists.
It’s how we’ll defeat Cuba.
It’s also one approach to non-militarily defeat NK.
So what if it starts with a video for their leader.
I remember Reagan saying the things the Soviets most wanted to see personally when they came to the U.S. were the great American invention: suburbs.
True.
“…a simulated North Korea under capitalism…”
You mean South Korea? Or did they actually edit footage of North Korean locations to look prosperous and vibrant?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/12/reporters-thought-this-video-was-north-korea-propaganda-it-came-from-the-white-house/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.48539e6a81dc
I’m amused at how many people are criticizing Trump for treating Kim like an equal. Well, it’s either that or declare war… unless those people don’t want anything to change. Maybe they forgot the old saying: Diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggy” while looking for a rock.
I’m a hubris-responsive being, so I can identify with their sentiment. Of course I don’t want to Kim to be allowed to think he’s entitled to respect as a leader of any sort. However, the skilled use of empathy gets constructive results, which is more valuable than eviscerating the ego of a single Harbinger.
There are millions of terrible people who have lived and died without me rending their souls. I can find it in me to endure one more if it means we can liberate his country.
“I am amused of course at the willingness of acolytes both left and right to retweet all the hot takes they can get their hands on. ”
Michael, I solved this frustration by avoiding not only Twitter, but all social media. Social media allows the opinions of ANYONE airtime. Why waste my time with it?
I find following twitter useful to gather a wide range of stories worthy of doing my own independent research on.
Additionally, if there is ever a hot spot around the world, I like to follow a dozen or so reporters on the ground, so I don’t have to wait on the propagandists at the MSM to tell me the narrative that I’m supposed to hear.
The consequence being I get to see a lot of the inanity from certain sectors of the population. Not paying attention to Twitter or other information outlets, to me, would be alot like General Patton not reading German tactical doctrine.
And there’s a few amusing Twitter publishers I like to follow for fun.
[reply to Michael West’s June 12 at 10:26 am]
I am with you there: cynical about whether the TRUMP-Kim summit – whatever its optics – will be effective in dissolving the Norks’ isolation from the rest of the world as a state of chronically predatory, parasitic and continually threatening rogues who perpetuate a perverse caste system.