Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Belligerent But Not Drunk

This morning I googled "Hollywood Ten". Knowing the basic story, I just wanted to read up on the subject of the blacklisting or boycotting of certain people in the entertainment business because of their alleged beliefs. The movies and info put out today about the Hollywood Ten seems to say that what happen back in the 50’s was wrong – people should be able to say what they want, be apart of any organization including the Communist Party – freedom of speech and all of that stuff. So why then did Charlie Gibson on ABC World News last night ask if Mel Gibson should be "punished" for his anti-Semitic remarks? Charlie suggested that people in the entertainment industry were going to call for a boycott/blacklisting of Mel. It seems a bit ironic to me that the very people who are against blacklisting for speaking out on your beliefs would turn around and suggest blacklisting one of their own for his drunk-talk. So is Hollywood saying that freedom of speech applies only if you are saying what Hollywood wants to hear?

I want to be clear here. I am not saying that being drunk and belligerent is okay or that saying anti-Semitic things is okay with me. I have been around "mean drunks" who say and do things that they would never do when sober. It does not mean that when they are drunk the truth comes out. It means that they are out of control, and often, hateful things are said and done which is certainly not okay. Whether Mel is really anti-Semitic is not my point here. Whether Mel needs to enter rehab is not my point. I think that the general public, me included, often boycotts people in the entertainment business whenever they spout views that we disagree with or when they do things that we do not agree with. It is pretty much the only way the general public can let Hollywood know that we are in disagreement or disapproval. The public will make its own decision on Mel.

I have often thought that the entertainment industry has its own agenda – a very leftwing, liberal agenda. In the past whenever some entertainer has spouted a controversial view in public, the industry has stood up for them. Whether it be views on homosexuals, gun laws, or treasonous anti-government statements, we are suppose to go along with or let them have their say. In the past there have been lots of entertainers who were drunk and disorderly in public saying and doing some pretty stupid things. So why the blacklisting of Mel? Why now? Does Hollywood have an agenda that you better go along with – or else? Are there conservative entertainers out there who are afraid to speak out publicly – afraid that no one will work with them if they do not go along with the Left? Has Hollywood come full cirlce? Are they just big hypocrits? Where is their "anything goes" attitude now? Just wondering…

As for me, I will probably make up my mind on Mel all by myself. I really don’t like Hollywood telling me what to do and think.


Becky said...

So is Hollywood saying that freedom of speech applies only if you are saying what Hollywood wants to hear?

Yep, that is exactly what Hollywood is saying.

Why the blacklisting of Mel? My guess is that it has nothing to do with his drunken belligerence or his anti-Semitic comments (since when does Hollywood, Democrats, or left wingers in general care anything about Jews?), and everything to do with a certain movie he made a few years ago called, "The Passion of The Christ."

Buck Pennington said...

I tend to agree with Becky. I believe there are lots of Hollywood movers and shakers that are gleefully rubbing their hands together and making self-congratulatory noises over this incident. Gibson was often taken to task in the past for his father's views (acorn, distance from the tree, and all that), but now there's "irrefutable reason" to shun him. This doesn't mean said people's behavior will change, it just means they now have a "valid" reason to condemn him. And they will.

It's an unfortunate incident. But, like you, Lou, I've known a lot of people that would say and do things while under the influence that were completely out of character from their sober selves. I didn't like most of those folks, but there were a few for which I "cut some slack." Very few.