Elton John shows the same ignorance of the First Amendment as Whoopi does, although I can kinda excuse it because he's a Brit:
Elton attacks 'censorship' in USOK, so maybe this story was news a year ago. Why is the BBC running it now? I was expecting him to connect this thought to the Whoopi incident, but he didn't. He went a different way:
Elton John has said stars are scared to speak out against war in Iraq because of "bullying tactics" used by the US government to hinder free speech.
"There's an atmosphere of fear in America right now that is deadly. Everyone is too career-conscious," he told New York magazine, Interview.
Sir Elton said performers could be "frightened by the current administration's bullying tactics",
The singer likened the current "fear factor" to McCarthyism in the 1950s.
"There was a moment about a year ago when you couldn't say a word about anything in this country for fear of your career being shot down by people saying you are un-American," he told the magazine.
"People like Bob Dylan, Nina Simone, The Beatles and Pete Seeger were constantly writing and talking about what was going on.
"That's not happening now. As of this spring, there have been virtually no anti-war concerts - or anti-war songs that catch on, for that matter," he said.
I have an entirely different take on this: Dylan et. al were unafraid to speak out because they knew their target audience thought the same way they did. I believe they were sincere in their cause, but don't forget that they made a lot of money out of it.
Contrast that with today, where very few anti-war songs have caught on. They haven't caught on because NOBODY CARES! (Or at least not enough people care to make it financially worthwhile, which nowadays is pretty much the same thing.) Perhaps more correctly: people may care, but not how the 'protest singers' want them to. Just ask the ChixieDicks.
Posted by Chris at July 17, 2004 10:47 AMI love every single one of your posts. Keep it up dude.
BTW, for Doonesbury, the section "BlowBack", there was an almost moving post by a veteran about the strip. Here it is:
Subject: WAY OFF BASE
Author: Howard T. Prince II, Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Retired
Location: Austin, TX
Posting Date: 7/24/04
I have read Doonesbury avidly from the beginning, usually appreciating the wit, satire, and freshness of the cartoons. Until now....I think you have gone too far recently with your parodies of the treatment of wounded soldiers from Iraq and the military's attempts to keep families separated by war in touch at special times such as high school graduation. I doubt you have the experience to know what it is like to be in combat or to wait anxiously for the return of a loved one or to care for young people savagely injured and maimed in war. So I think you are way off base in mocking those who fight, those who wait, and those who care for the injured. Go after the politicians but leave the warriors alone. Instead of mocking them and their loved ones, and the dedicated professionals who care for them, you should take the high road and honor those who volunteered to risk their lives if necessary whenever and wherever their country sends them into harm's way.
I think you are also wrong to make fun of veterans who come to the hospitals to offer support, encouragement and hope to those who are hurt or disabled. You are in no position to make fun of an amputee veteran who comes to a hospital to help those who have recently lost limbs. And you really lost it when you made fun of the telecast of high school graduations and the chance for families to reunite in a teleconference. How obtuse and insensitive are you that you would make fun of people who are trying to stay in touch with their loved ones?
I was wounded twice in Vietnam and spent a year in a hospital after the second injury, followed by four more years of convalescence. When I went to Vietnam I left behind a young wife and two infant sons and none of us knew if we would ever be together again. I believe you owe the veterans of the current war an apology for your recent insensitivity and lack of appreciation.
Kinda pissed me off at the doony writer.
Another good post:
Subject: CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR REACTION
Author: J.D. Bolick
Location: Greenville, NC
Posting Date: 7/24/04
I'm concerned about your reaction to the Continental Features decision [to remove d'bury]. You and many others seem to be under the impression that "free speech" also means freedom from consequences of that speech. It doesn't and never has. Comic strips, commentators, artists, etc are regularly dropped or chastized for behavior considered to be "out of line." It happens to both liberals and conservatives, so there is no moral high ground for you to claim. Nor is it wrong.
Imagine, if you will, a clerk at Blockbuster Video. Let's say that clerk repeatedly badgers customers about their political beliefs, and more precisely, what they should believe. Is that appropriate? Would Blockbuster be out of line if they reprimanded or even fired that employee? No. Just as there is freedom to speak, there is freedom to govern your relationships. Blockbuster can choose not to associate with that individual within their establishment just as Continental Features can choose not to associate with you. Neither of those actions would prevent the activist in question from continuing to express their beliefs. Those companies are taking away a venue -- their venue -- not your rights. If you look at this from their perspective, how would forcing them to continue publishing something that is causing them trouble, and which they might not endorse, any more representative of the American spirit?
Please give that some consideration before continuing to claim that you're a victim. If you're a victim of anything, it's your own overzealous, excessive interests.
I guess my comment here belongs down there by the d'bury thing but oh well. Later.
That's OK. Thanks for the kind words; I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at July 26, 2004 11:24 AM