 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Our local paper carries this report today. The artist praised the Moore documentary but was greeted with loud boos with some of the 4500 audience storming out in protest. People tore down concert posters and tossed cocktails into the air. The Aladdin casino President, Bill Timms, did not allow Ms Ronstadt back into her luxury suite according to the report.If the report is correct it implies that "free" speech is not very welcome!!
Was this reported in the US press?
I wonder about how things are reported to US citizens. With the media relying on advertising to survive, they rely on readership. So they are careful to report the news people want to hear -> maintain sales.
Is this how an open and free democracy is meant to work? It concerns me that many Americans (not so much those who lurk here) are making judgements on limited data.
An international documentary aired here last night gave a strong case to suggest that the White House is using the media very cleverly for propaganda purposes in much the same way it was manipulated in WW2. "Tell an untruth often enough and people will accept it as fact & belive it" seems to be in operation.
Sad, and of serious concern for all Western democracies.
John
Interesting times
Follow Ups:
If I hire a baker for my (imaginary) bakery and he decides to carve "God Bless Michael Moore" into each loaf of bread thereby seriously pissing off my customers to the extent they may do violence to my establishment, when I throw his ass out the door I am most certainly NOT infringing on his free speech.It's high time someone writing the paycheck told ridiculously self-important entertainers to shut up and sing...they weren't hired for their intellect. The clucking over Ronstadt's heave-ho is really getting to be a bore.
s
.
\|/ \|/
| |
Linda Ronstadt or any other person has every right to express his or her opinions, political or otherwise. Almost all Americans would defend his or her right to do so.The problem arises when a performer who is hired to entertain a diverse group of paying patrons decides to make their performance a platform for their political views. I respect Ms. Ronstadt as a singer and if I paid to go see her, I would expect her to sing. I could really care less about her political views and would expect her to check those at the doorstep when she performs for a payig audience.
Chris
;-)
she needs a "Dumbass" tatoo prominently displayed.
Everyone here, including myself, is looking for a bully pulpit. That includes the people with swinish behavior who frequent Las Vegas. It's the extremism of the Bush government that's motivating me.Also, it is sad that the level of discourse is being set by the Limbaughs, Coulters and OReillys.
Thing is, when you get a softer spoken person, someone, like Kerry or Edwards, they appear to be wimps, compared to the macho shouters. Or even the macho struttting and comments of Bush. That was one advantage the Dean had. He could go toe to toe with any of them. Too bad the Dems don't have an insight into this.
.
He was definitely a shouter! :)At any rate---although Dean is a nutcase, he at least would be more welcome than the milquetoast of Kerry. What a wet bag of sand the Dems have tapped for their nominee.
The audience has it too, and it expressed it.Let me do my free speech, but you hold yours!
If you come to my house and start yapping about Hillary, you get no sweet tea either... you get a healthy kick in the butt.
Linda Ronstadt has the right to say whatever she wants---the audience also has the right to tell her she's full of it. They paid to hear her sing, not to hear a political speech---so they let her know they weren't happy about it.So what's the problem? As I see it, everybody exercised their right to free speech. So get over it.
. . . is that while we all have the right to free speech, no one has the right to be heard, or listened to, or subsidized.Thus it is not an abridgement of free speech for a crowd of paying citizens to (non-violently) object to getting a political lecture when they thought they were buying a concert.
Nor is it an abridgement of free speech for the owner of the venue to decide that he doesn't want the entertainers he hires to piss off his clientele. That's bad for business, and a simple free-market decision results.
If the entertainer feels the need to give us the benefit of their inexperience, they have the right to start a newspaper, tv station, web site, write a book, give interviews, make a movie--and we all have the right to fawn over them or ingnore them at our will.
These points seem to confuse many people. For instance, when a government-subsidized "artist" creates offensive "art," it is not censorship for the government to withdraw the subsidy. The artist is still free to express himself in any way that pleases him, he'll just have to round up his own customers.
No customers? Tough titty.
In the statistical survey by Environics Research Group (Canada) over the period 1983 - 2000, "Fire and Ice. The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values" by Michael Adams:"an initially liberal society like the US has ended up producing a people who are materialistic, outer-directed, intolerant and socially conservative."
S
that free speech is not welcome. Linda stated her beliefs and she wasn't arrested or anything. The crowd certainly excercised free speech.I think the problem here is people came to hear a woman perform and sing. She stopped performing and started pushing politics. Presumably, people payed money to attend. They didn't like what they were hearing and reacted.
I personally am so sick of actors and performers getting political it isn't funny. They are self important idiots who think their point of view is the only one that matters. (This includes actors who are left OR right, doesn't matter to me). Shut up and act or sing.
I'd rather hear a teamster or a nurse talk about politiics.
John
"Shut Up & Sing" apparently addressing that vary issue. She was dumfounded when actors testify before congressional committees because they played a particular role once. You'd think after suffering Sean Penn's ramblings agents would convincingly warn their clients better & people would stop listening.
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
"Our local paper carries this report today. The artist praised the Moore documentary but was greeted with loud boos with some of the 4500 audience storming out in protest. People tore down concert posters and tossed cocktails into the air. The Aladdin casino President, Bill Timms, did not allow Ms Ronstadt back into her luxury suite according to the report.If the report is correct it implies that 'free' speech is not very welcome!!"
The First Amendment of the United States Consitution states that **government** (Congress) shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. What does a crowd storming out of a concert and a performer being banished by a private institution have to do with that??
It is sad, very sad, that people do not know the context of free speech. All Ronstadt needs to do is find an institution that embraces her views, and she'll be performing again. In front of audiences with much more liberal views than before.
My interpretation of "free speech" is that one has the right to say what one thinks, provided it is not slanderous, without any penalty. It appears that Ms Rondstadt was penalised by being subjected to rancor from part of the audience and from being thrown out of the hotel. Actions such as this are pressures against free speech and, taken far enough supress it. Once this happens democracy disappears.So Todd, I think what happened does have a lot to do with free speech and, more pointedly, the tolerance of people to respect the views of others. This intolerance (e.g. by some people of anyone with the Moslem or Jewish faith) is a cancer that works against a free democratic society. Maybe intolerance of Ms Rondstadt's opinion is not as serious as racial intolerance but it is going down the same path to supress people from voicing their opinions -> supressing free speech.
John
Interesting times
"It appears that Ms Rondstadt was penalised by being subjected to rancor from part of the audience and from being thrown out of the hotel. Actions such as this are pressures against free speech and, taken far enough supress it."The same can be said if the audience was ordered to keep quiet and bear the comments. They had a right to voice their opposition just as much Ronstadt had a right to voice the initial opinion.
Ronstadt's problem was she did not know her audience. Her music was not exactly stuff that would draw solely liberal-thinking people to her shows. The people showed up to hear her perform. If they wanted to hear political speech, they'd attend a political rally, not a pop concert.
It would have been different had Barbra Streisand been performing. Because her political views are *already* known. And hence the audience would show up knowing very well a salvo of political commentary might occur. (A lot of the people storming out of the Ronstadt concert would probably never think of attending a Streisand concert.) So no such interaction would be expected. Ronstadt's commments, on the other hand, were totally unexpected, since Ronstadt was never known for bringing politics to her performances. If nothing else, in future concerts, Ronstadt's audiences will be a lot more like Streisand's, in regard to the collective political view. (I like Ronstadt, musically speaking, far more than Streisand.)
The left wants to stifle dissent. Their side is the only voice that should be heard. That's their version of "free speech". The left believes the audience should be forced to buy more tickets & more music as if she had said nothing. Thus, her career would not suffer any consequences nor she face any responsibility for her actions. I wouldn't be surprised if the left believes LR should receive taxpayer subsidies for any loss of revenue. Thus, making the gov't subsidize speech in direct conflict with the explicit Constitutional prohibition guaranteeing free speech.
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
"The left believes the audience should be forced to buy more tickets & more music as if she had said nothing."I'm not sure about that. The left does think an entertainer spouting political opinion to an unsuspecting audience is free speech (which it is), but those responding to it is not (it is too). Free speech does not mean it ought be immune from scorn or protest.
The thing I don't understand is if Ronstadt thought such comments would win Kerry votes, I think if anything, it will do the opposite. For it turns off more people than it turns on. So while these entertainers say what they say, possibly against the will of their audience, my take is, let them keep doing it. They'll be hurting the very people they're trying to help. (There are pro-Bush people doing the same thing.) And possibly hurt their careers in the process. For one will sell more tickets from a pool of both conservatives and liberals than from a pool of just conservatives or just liberals.
The odd part is that the left is angry with the president for their re-creation of it. Lord knows they've been hard at work chiseling it since the midterm election season. Now, that they've succeeded. They point fingers elsewhere for their work of hate. Somehow I don't believe delivering a NARP-approved prescription drug plan was responsible, nor do I believe it was following through in Iraq after they approved with mostly Clinton's Intel, nor do I believe it was dramatically increasing aid of fighting Africa's pandemic, nor do I believe it was doubling funding for education, nor do I believe keeping Dem Clinton appointees on. No, I believe it's nothing that they say. It was prez.Bush reciprocating with his own legal bow shot of using the recess appointment process like Clinton did in reaction to the hull shots fired from the senate.
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
" The left wants to stifle dissent. Their side is the only voice that should be heard. That's their version of "free speech"From here it appears this cuts both ways. People on either the far left or far right are intolerant of a different viewpoint. Generalisations such as the one made above add little to intelligent debate :-( To this simple mind "free speech" needs to be aligned with tolerance to let someone else hold a different viewpoint without the need to denigrate an opposing viewpoint.
"The left believes the audience should be forced to buy more tickets & more music as if she had said nothing."
Sorry but I cannot understand how this interpretation can be made. Where in this thread is that suggested?
"Thus, her career would not suffer any consequences nor she face any responsibility for her actions. I wouldn't be surprised if the left believes LR should receive taxpayer subsidies for any loss of revenue. Thus, making the gov't subsidize speech in direct conflict with the explicit Constitutional prohibition guaranteeing free speech."
Drawing a VERY long bow to come up with that "logic"!!! Maybe she was unwise to express a political viewpoint at a musical event. I say "maybe" because it would all depend on the context in which she made it and we do not know this context. Regardless it was most discourteous of a few to disrupt the concert and spoil it for others because she expressed an unwelcome view.
My main beef is against intolerance and misinformation, both of which seem very much in evidence in debates at the moment.
Apologies if it is insulting, but your posts suggest you are a very intolerant person :-( Hopefully this is not so.
John
Interesting times
"My interpretation of "free speech" is that one has the right to say what one thinks, provided it is not slanderous, without any penalty. It appears that Ms Rondstadt was penalised by being subjected to rancor from part of the audience and from being thrown out of the hotel. Actions such as this are pressures against free speech and, taken far enough supress it. Once this happens democracy disappears."
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
" " The left wants to stifle dissent. Their side is the only voice that should be heard. That's their version of "free speech"From here it appears this cuts both ways. ..."
That's the problem. When was the last time "60 Minutes" aired a pro-Bush program?? The bias is disgusting. Yet these same people turn around and try to use the government to get Fox News to change its ways??
Note that while "60 Minutes" may be disgustingly biased, nobody is seeking such change to that program. And nobody should. If a news organization is biased or posts misinformation, the market will bolt from it. Because the competition is providing the correct information. People will be objective if given the chance to be.
"Apologies if it is insulting, but your posts suggest you are a very intolerant person :-( Hopefully this is not so."
You should take a step back, and see who is really being intolerant.
The story here is that LR got booed by some, then others tried to shout down the Boo-ers, then things quickly got out of hand, with drinks being tossed and other vandalism.Management made a big show of firing her, which was laughable since she was only booked there for that one night.
The CON spin is that this is the free market expressing its opinion, of course. As is their usual, they overlook the vandalism if its for their good cause. The only time they give a rip about free speech is when it is theirs; the opposition has no right to it, of course, and will not be tolerated.
This is not a particularly proud moment in our history.
I know, it joins ranks with Wounded Knee and Mi Lai.
That is a fact.
and the guy who threw her out will himself be out of a job very shortly (the property is being sold).
We have just returned from a European tour along with nearly 40 other Americans. Most share your view Jim, but some had frightening opinions like "WMD will still be found", "CNN is controlled by Democrats who manipulate the news", "Arabs are just animals".These and other beliefs appear to be held with religious zeal, meaning that no alternative viewpoint would even be considered or tolerated. We avoided their company.
I guess my views are a little to the right of centre and I vote accordingly here. However extremist views either Christian or Moslem based are warping the whole scene.
Makes one wonder if the Crusade is again in progress with about as much common sense and reasoning being used now as applied then. Let us hope that Nostradamus was incorrect in his prediction that the Middle East will be the next centre of major conflict.
John
Interesting times
"...but some had frightening opinions like 'WMD will still be found', 'CNN is controlled by Democrats who manipulate the news', 'Arabs are just animals'."What's so awful about the first of your cited opinions??
"These and other beliefs appear to be held with religious zeal, meaning that no alternative viewpoint would even be considered or tolerated."
This is IMO a tactic of liberals, yet they accuse conservatives of doing. Try to find a right-wing organization who is seeking a government referendum against any news agency the way MoveOn.org is seeking to have done with Fox News.
"However extremist views either Christian or Moslem based are warping the whole scene."
I realize there are some whacked Christians out there, but they certainly aren't taking hostages, beheading people, and taking out population centers. As a non-Christian, I find it curious people have an abject fear of Christians.
WMD are the only answer to your first question, there is a righty-tighty extremeist group doing everything in their power to get Moore's movie shut down, "Dittoheads" abound, and some of those benign whacked out Christians have murdered medical doctors with bombs.Do you live on Mart World, too?
No doubt, those who objected to LR were similar to the zealots you experienced. We have an entire electronic media set-up here to cater to their closed minds, feeding them their next issues to be outraged about.In the case of the Moore film, it is important to note that those who despise it have rarely if ever seen it. Their entire opinion of it is based on what this particular media wing tells them to think of it. Very much like a religion, isn't it?
I haven't met any of these people of whom you so hatefully speak. I have met those on the left who only believe leftists OpEds for their next "thought". I suppose the make opinions into facts if someone repeats it often enough. Scary stuff that these zombies vote huh? However, it's better than having condescending elitist predetermining whose will be heard.
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
Somehow, I knew a charter-memeber dittohead would show up.
is that some leftwingnut fantasy? at this point, should I ask was your hate good for you?
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
Or, a mirror without cracks in it. Good Luck.
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
" "Tell an untruth often enough and people will accept it as fact & belive it" seems to be in operation."This has been happening since the Bush regime came to power. As I've often said, there is a masterful propaganda machine at work here, almost as effective as Hitler's.
It has terrifying implications for the entire world.
Even many highly intellegent people have been completely brainwashed. The US media completely isolates them from the rest of the world. This is not seen anywhere else.
This is precisely why the two-term law exists in the US, unfortunately, in this case, two terms will likely have horrible consequences.
Not surprisingly the right wingers came out against free speech using silly arguments that don't even bare repeating... so I won't.
- sadly predictable leftist spin
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
Personally, I think that the owner should be pressured into making a public apology regardless, especially since the story has been distorted in the media by the owner and the press which apparently relied on his version. What really occured was reported in a CNN interview yesterday by someone who was in the audience; BTW, I would think that a first hand witness is far more reliable than a slimey casino owner.Here's the gist of what was stated in the interview:
1) Of the moderately large audience, approximately 2000 folks, only a relatively small minority booed and left (i.e., around 200, max)! Supposedly a few malcontents did toss their drinks and a poster or two outside the performance hall was defaced, but after all it IS Las Vegas; I guess the uptight losers are going to get their money's worth one way or another! Anyway, the bottom line is that around 90% of the folks remained to hear Ms. Ronstadt's performance without complaint.
2) According to Linda Ronstadt's representative, who was also interviewed at the time, this was the 3rd performance where she had dedicated the song Desperado to Michael Moore, so this wasn't some spur of the moment "activist" idea that went awry. BTW, the other performances she gave apparently came off without incident.
Note: Lots of performers partake in political activism and share their opinions on stage during performances; it's no big deal. If I didn't walk out of a performance where Ted Nugent was sharing his political opinions as one of the openning acts for Bad Company concert a couple of years ago, then I can't see why a bunch of sh*t-faced Republican Bush babies with their panties in a bunch shouldn't be able to sit through a Linda Ronstadt performance without throwing a hissy fit!
AuPh
Some of 90% of the LV losers who stayed may have behaved as you did & dismissed Linda's kookery for just another ranting from an empty-headed songbird ala Sinead O'Connor. Who knows? Maybe the empty skull accounts for her melodic acoustics?
;^>
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
... rather than speculate on what makes an admired country-rock vocalist tick? Why don't you look at the acoustics of the hall where she performed instead? For instance, the room was made up of 90% acoustically friendly material (HER audience) and 10% dead air (the low-life LV drunks who understandably empathize with Smirk). ;^DAuPh
I suppose she had that audience in the recording studio too, eh? Maybe she should sing "Desperado" for you next time
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
Which begs the question "When can you believe what you read?"Which returns again to the White House propaganda machine. If you are a Republican you believe it all. If you are a Democrat you believe none of it. So where does that leave the swinging voter to be able to make an informed opinion?
John
Interesting times
Usually, when there are two sides to things the truth falls somewhere in the middle, but when something looks suspect (i.e., smells funny, rhetorically speaking) then you have to trust your instincts and common sense.It's like the Sandy Berger thing, where he supposedly removed sensitive documents, mostly personal notes, from the 9/11 Commission Archives before giving testimony. Sure it's a screw-up and Mr. Berger should be held accountable for his actions, even if it's only a bone-headed mistake on his part; perhaps he should even withdraw from the political scene due to the embarrassment caused by his bad judgment, assuming that that's all it is, because it's drawing media attention away from the crucial 9/11 Commission Report.
However, that said, the timing of this leak (i.e., nearly a year after the fact, with no criminal charges in an on-going investigation and an agreement with the Justice Department in place NOT to play politics with the information) could not be more opportune as a diversionary tactic for the Bush campaign, just like the Valerie Plame CIA outing. Common sense tells me that the leaking of this information before the release of the Commission Report was orchestrated from the Bush White House which, when combined with the aforementioned Plame outing, is as unconscionable as anything plotted in the Nixon White House.
My assessment: Bush and his cronies are a bunch of ruthless slimeballs who can't be trusted. Bush's "personally endorsed" political ads are all negative, degrading attack ads; so far, Kerry's ads have all been positive and upbeat, with nothing derogatory directed at his opponant. That's an observation which reveals something of the character of both men.
Cheers,
AuPh
Your link does not work.John
Interesting times
the other worked for me. try this one . It's an absolute link rather than a relative one.
♪ moderate Mart £ ♫ ☺ Planar Asylum
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
