Part 3: Prop 8 McCarthyism, er, uhm Witch Hunt, oops, yeah Terrorism — Continues
Posted by Dirty Harry on Friday, November 14th, 2008
Someone’s naming names, or at least spreading them around. The latest witch being hunted is Los Angeles Film Festival director Rich Raddon, who had the temerity to donate $1500 to Prop 8.
Upon being, uhm, outtted, he promptly offered his resignation.
It wasn’t accepted, but the board is meeting now about how to move forward.
Nice, huh? You donate to a political cause and the board meets to decide your fate.
Good old tolerant, liberal Hollywood.
Think anyone in show business will ever again donate to any political cause that might result in the witch hunt currently being waged?
Hell, no.
Think that might be part of the liberal fascist plan?
Hell, yes.
Check out what the guy who floated the idea of blacklisting Jon Voight suggests happen to Raddon:
There’s a way to make this all go away. Raddon, and I say this as a friend, needs to put out a statement clarifying his views on gay marriage — why exactly does he support the Mormon view on this measure? — and fully explain the basis of his (presumably) religious objections to same. Nobody wants to see him gone, but his financial support of Proposition 8 has put his neck in the wringer.
Yeah, he says that as a friend.
Show trials now.
Kangaroo courts of public opinion.
Stand up and explain yourself. And make it good, or…
Love that first sentence. Right out of the re-education playbook: There’s a way to make it all go away.
McCarthyite, left-wing fascists.
The lack of outrage from the rest of free-speech loving, no chill wind’n, freedom of expression defending, liberal Hollywood is absolutely deafening.
This is America you liberal McCarthyites and people have the right to disagree without fear of losing their jobs or having to adequately explain themselves to make it all go away.
Here’s some more liberal compassion for you. Terrorism!
While I feel awful for the individuals caught up in this witch hunt, the fact that it’s happening and getting some real publicity is a good thing. America needs to see who the awful, fascist, intolerants are who run this town. And they break down into two camps…
Those participating in this disgraceful behavior, and…
Those standing silently by allowing it to happen.
Filed in General |
JohnJon 14 Nov 2008 at 5:02 pm 1Why is it considered “the Mormon view”?
And DH, all these prop 8 posts are bringing up gay ads on your site. Just FYI.
Jack Marinoon 14 Nov 2008 at 5:15 pm 2Welcome to the wonderful world of fascist liberalism where only the ‘right mined’ make films and go to the best parties.
Hooray for Hollywood…
thudon 14 Nov 2008 at 5:15 pm 3This is why I don’t subscribe to the hand of friendship crap to obama and the liberals…they mean to crush us at every turn….the fight will become increasingly bitter and the we are better than them nonsense will condemn us to extinction as a viable political and social alternative.We need to reorganise and fight back…fight back hard and take no prisoners…we live in unusual times folks.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 14 Nov 2008 at 5:23 pm 4When will they protest Obama for coming out against gay marriage?
Oh, right.
Hollywood will soon look like Hollywood Elsewhere.
Only people with the correct thoughts will be allowed to enter.
All Hail Groupthink!
JohnLockeon 14 Nov 2008 at 5:28 pm 5Please, stop insulting McCarthy by associating him with the tactics of these people. No matter what mistakes he made, his was a noble and selfless cause. These people care only about purging the movie industry of people who dare to disagree with them.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 14 Nov 2008 at 5:41 pm 6JohnLocke
But McCarthy did want to rid the government that didn’t agree with him.
Of course McCarthy wanted to rid the government of communists and traitors. His opponents felt otherwise.
Gee, I wonder if most of the Obama administration would side with McCarthy or his opponents.
On second thought, I know which side everyone from Obama on down would come down on.
rrpjron 14 Nov 2008 at 5:43 pm 7Thanks for framing this issue in the language it demands, which so few have been willing to do. I find the story simply incredible, and getting more so each day. For any American with a conscience and love of freedom, this all must feel sickly surreal, like a nightmare. It now has much less to do with gay rights than with what kind of society we are selecting for ourselves, or allowing brutes to select for us.
Where are the defenders of free speech and civil libertarians beyond Hollywood?
Where are society’s leaders decrying mob rule?
What happens to a society when those “leaders” and the members of its press class are more sympathetic to the mob, or more filled with fear of it, than they are filled with a sense of indebtedness to their democratic traditions and the good faith and rule of law required to sustain them?
Or has it already happened?
And where are the men and women willing to fight these fascists? It would help if the people being targeted didn’t peremptorily fold and volunteer their resignations. Such parochial oppression can only exist – and spread — in conditions of moral cowardice.
Stephanieon 14 Nov 2008 at 6:10 pm 8K I just got to the hotel room..am I reading this right? WOW…..he needs a lawyer……..RIGHT NOW…and thats not the merlot I had with my dinner talking.
Jack Marinoon 14 Nov 2008 at 7:18 pm 9JohnnyEd, these cowards don’t have the guts to go into Watts and protest against any AME Church against any and all Blacks who voted for Obama and for prop 8 at 97%. Why don’t these tough gays go into Watts or Compton, they only have the guts to push an old small woman carrying a cardboard cross in Palm Springs.
They stomped on her cross as if it was a living thing and they were killing it. This is a demonic hatred for a symbol of Christ. I’d love to see what happens when they go into the Black neighborhoods.
MovieBobon 14 Nov 2008 at 8:56 pm 10Harry,
If I don’t care for the color a man has painted his home, and I say “buddy, I don’t like the way you’ve painted your house,” he’s got no right to become enraged or come after me in some way - all I did, after all, was offer my opinion… even if I was being kind of a jerk about it.
Now, if I were to get together a coalition of other neighbors and we came by and sand-blasted the paint off his house because we didn’t like the color… That dude can’t be blamed for being pissed off and coming after me - even if I got some legal paperwork to make it “okay” to have vandalized his home and taken his housepaint away from him.
You didn’t just vote to register your opinion of homosexuality, you voted to TAKE SOMETHING AWAY FROM PEOPLE. They’re gonna be mad about that.
HARRY HERE: MovieBob, what in the hell are you talking about? Did you pace the room, tap your chin, and really mull over the question: WHAT IS THE STUPIDEST THING I CAN WRITE?
Please do find where I’m objecting to anger. Good grief.
More left-wing wrapping ’round the argument axel by going off topic. It wastes my time and PISSES ME OFF. If you were half as outraged at this indefensible behavior as you were at excusing it and changing the subject…
Debate like a grown up or go away.
Angry? Who’s objecting to anger? Dolt
The Ugly Americanon 14 Nov 2008 at 9:07 pm 11After reading a few L.A. blogs today, it looks like this boycott is beginning to lose support.
More and more of these No on Prop 8 people are showing disapproval with the tactics of the protesters.
Just 2 days ago, you didn’t hear anyone speaking out but now, they’re starting to question the direction.
Except for a handful of hardcore protesters, I think this “boycott” will be over by next week.
The Ugly Americanon 14 Nov 2008 at 9:09 pm 12LOVE, the pic btw DH.
MovieBobon 14 Nov 2008 at 10:18 pm 13“Please do find where I’m objecting to anger. Good grief.”
Do you think the people protesting, especially the ones “going too far” are doing so for some other reason? They’re ANGRY - anger makes one behave poorly at times…
“Angry? Who’s objecting to anger? Dolt”
…Name-calling, for example
You’ll find in the thread above this one, and on my own blog (http://moviebob.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-8.html) that I condemn in no uncertain terms the folks who are going too far. That I UNDERSTAND where they are coming from doesn’t mean I have to agree with all of their methods.
My only issue with you, friend, is this implied notion - which I’m giving you and others a MASSIVE benefit-of-the-doubt by regarding it as sincere - that this is somehow a MASSIVE overreaction. I disagree, I see it as a largely appropriate reaction marred by a few over-the-line acts (physical violence and vandalism, mainly.) I don’t see the proposed boycotts or even the “outing” of folks like Raddon as some huge step over the line… merely an ugly reaction to an ugly action.
If this was a case of Raddon or whoever having answered “no” on a “do you support gay marriage” poll in the LA Times and someone leaking that and calling for a boycott of the man because of his beliefs I’d say “that’s not cool.” But it’s not JUST about disagreeing with his opinion - he gave money and support to a movement the goal of which was to take something away from a group of people. That the group that had something taken away from them might want to not support him or his businesses and/or encourage others to do the same doesn’t fill me with outrage - only sadness that it’s come to this on all sides… tempered, however, by the knowledge that aggressive conflict is usually the only way any real cultural-evolution is ever achieved.
Carolynon 14 Nov 2008 at 11:11 pm 14(Raddon) gave money and support to a movement the goal of which was to take something away from a group of people.
MovieBob? Harry’s wrong. You didn’t tap your chin, you whacked your head — with a mallet. Go see a doctor for that concussion - it could be fatal if left untreated.
Once your vision clears, you’ll see the truth. Prop 8 took NOTHING away from gays because - duhhh - there was nothing to take away. There never has been, there is not, and there never will be any marrige ‘right’ for gays. Gay marriage is not right, it’s wrong, it’s illegal and immoral - and nothing will change that.
In fact, Bob - once your head clears, you will see it’s actually the gays who trying to take OUR rights away. Our rights to our moral beliefs, our rights to have our laws upheld (not smashed underfoot by the California Supreme Court), rights our faith, our principles, etc. The gays are trying their damndest to take it all away. And with the screaming hatred of a mob.
MovieBobon 14 Nov 2008 at 11:26 pm 15Carolyn
“In fact, Bob - once your head clears, you will see it’s actually the gays who trying to take OUR rights away.”
What right, exactly, did they take away from you? Did I miss the amendment that would’ve made it illegal to consider homosexuality a sin? The recognition of a right to same-sex marriage in CA didn’t take anything tangible away from you, but reversing it DID take something real and tangible away from them.
I have a certain amount of sympathy for people who are given to feeling a bit displaced when the culture makes a shift (”evolves,” if you like) in a direction counter to a moral tradition that’s part of THEIR foundation. Most people, one understands, go through life at least to some degree in the mindset that the “normal” or “mainstream” culture more or less agrees with them. Moments in which one realizes that this isn’t the case are jarring… or at least I imagine they would be. I wouldn’t know - I’ve NEVER been welcome in the “normal mainstream” and in fact have been agressively shoved out of it on numerous occasions, so I’m kinda used to knowing that most of the world ISN’T “on my side” - but I imagine that it’s not a pleasant experience.
But, I’m sorry… discomfit because your personal moral/religious beliefs no longer align fully with the laws of the state is NOT the same thing as having a right to get married on Nov. 10th and then NOT having it on Nov. 12th. Regardless of whether or not you think they should’ve gotten it in the first place, they HAD the right and then they DIDN’T. They had something taken away from them, something that was real and tangible. What was taken from you when they got it in the first place? Nothing. NOTHING. How did you suffer? You had to see gay people hugging on the news? Poor thing
Jack Marinoon 14 Nov 2008 at 11:57 pm 16The gay militants are going to strong arm anyone they can. This is their moment, they may feel with Obama in the White House they can do what they want. Even though Obama isn’t for gay marriage, they feel he is with them on most things. This strong arm tactics at Christian churches, places of businesses and people who made donations. Getting people to quit their jobs is right out of the Nazis when they were going after the jewish intellectuals, shop owners etc.
This isn’t going to get them more support acting like spoiled children who can’t get their way.
Mike Kriskeyon 15 Nov 2008 at 5:20 am 17You’ve changed the tense, Bob. Clever.
Saturday link love — WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH?on 15 Nov 2008 at 7:59 am 18[…] indispensable Dirty Harry chats about the new Hollywood […]
wfon 15 Nov 2008 at 8:54 am 19Ok, once again.
Marriage is not a “human right” just because you say so. It is a very old and central social institution. Institutions can change over time. The change will come if society´s view of the institution changes, not whenever you please. If change is imposed before that, of course you are infringing on other people´s rights, beginning with their right to express dissent.
Gays already have all the rights that are owed to a citizen, including the right to advocate their desire for change.
I cannot accept the argument that gay marriage must be granted as a matter of equality before the law. That is because it is the very nature and definition of this institution that two men or two women are in fact not the same as a man and a woman. Equality cannot be legislated where there is none. Life is unfair. If you are gay, you cannot marry just as a 5´5? guy has no right to be on the basketball team or a poor fat bald guy has no right to have as many girlfriends as George Clooney.
The “slippery slope” argument, based on bitter experience, has merit: once you start redefining it there is no end. How can you refuse marriage status to a polygamist? Someone who wants to marry his mother or adult daughter? Why is that not the same? Don´t tell me there will be no lawyers eager to take that up. There will also be legal action to have it taught in school books. We know there are people who never know when it´s enough. We have seen gay activists demanding that those who simply want no part of gay marriage (be they priests or caterers) be coerced or punished. These fascists do not serve their cause well.
There is also the matter of showing consideration to others as a citizen. Marriage is a sacrament for tens of millions of religious believers. They have a stake in this, as do people like me who have just a conservative outlook on society. Civil unions (which Bush supported) differ in my opinion not substantially from marriage, but are more acceptable to believers. Why can´t gays be gracious and concede that they are not the only ones for whom marriage is an important and sensitive subject? Why should everyone be considerate but them? Having said that, there are many gay people who are considerate and fair and we must acknowledge them, too.
Jay Deeon 15 Nov 2008 at 11:38 pm 20Lets see…a bunch of liberal judges decide they have the right to ignore the will of the people and “legalise” gay marriage. In a democratic society the majority vote against the judge’s liberal agenda. The people won but the gays aren’t happy with majority rules except when their darling Obama wins an election. You can’t have it both ways. But this isn’t about “rights for gays” - it’s about gays destroying all that the silent majority hold dear. Only by destroying every traditional value in this country will the radical gays be happy. Nothing that represents a Judeo-Christian value system where children are raised by one man, one woman can be “tolerated” by these extremists. Once they win this battle then they will attempt to censor, demoralise and finally eradicate churches that believe in one man, one woman marriage(whilst ignoring the “death for homosexuals” preachers in the mosques, of course)…this is FASCISM and we have to make a stand against it now …..
moviebobon 16 Nov 2008 at 4:13 pm 21wf
“Marriage is not a “human right” just because you say so.”
Neither is gun ownership (SELF DEFENSE is a human right, the tool one is permitted to utilize in doing so is rather remarkably regulable) but I’m going to guess you and I both want it to be a LEGAL right.
“It is a very old and central social institution.”
So is Sharia. What’s your point?
“Institutions can change over time.”
The can also change rather quickly, when righteous men of vision strike blows that FORCE change with powerful impact. See: Moses, Jefferson and a pair of men named Martin Luther.
“If change is imposed before that, of course you are infringing on other people´s rights, beginning with their right to express dissent.”
No one worth taking seriously is disputing people’s right to dissent - what’s in dispute are legal (as in LEGALLY GRANTED) rights and the power of a majority to take-away legally-granted rights because the find the minority on the recieving end (pardon the pun) of these rights to be “icky.”
“If you are gay, you cannot marry just as a 5´5? guy has no right to be on the basketball team or a poor fat bald guy has no right to have as many girlfriends as George Clooney.”
A 5′5 guy DOES have a right to be on a basketball team… he just doesn’t have the right to be garaunteed a spot on the roster. If he can play and the team drafts him and puts him in the lineup, he can’t be then told by the NBA that he has no right to be there based on his height. A poor fat bald guy has the RIGHT to have as many girlfriends as George Clooney… providing he can “aquire” them.
“The “slippery slope” argument, based on bitter experience, has merit: once you start redefining it there is no end. How can you refuse marriage status to a polygamist? Someone who wants to marry his mother or adult daughter? Why is that not the same? Don´t tell me there will be no lawyers eager to take that up.”
“Don’t do something fairly reasonable because a lawyer MIGHT use it as an excuse to do something foolish” isn’t any kind of sound law policy.
“There will also be legal action to have it taught in school books.”
I reserve my judgement on the schoolbook subject until such time as I have decent headshots and measurements of Heather’s two mommies. If I’m going to fund such things, they’d best be informative AND entertaining
“There is also the matter of showing consideration to others as a citizen.”
My consideration for other citizens ends at the tip of thier knuckles and the bridge of my nose. Society, community and all the other cute little collective dreamscapes place a distant, distant second to The Individual.
“Marriage is a sacrament for tens of millions of religious believers.”
So is female genital mutilation. What’s your point?
“They have a stake in this, as do people like me who have just a conservative outlook on society.”
You’re “stake,” with respect, wouldn’t even make for a useful toothpick. What changes for YOU (not made-up theoretical B.S. like “society” and “community,” I mean YOU personally) if homosexuals can enter legal civil marriages? Tell me. Outside of having to “deal with” the Wedding Announcements section of your local paper being slightly larger and more varied than before, what about your day-to-day existance is different that anyone should care about? Is there a gazebo you’re worried about being less-likely able to rent? Are you a honey farmer worried that the uptick in the market for pink roses will negatively impact the indiginous pollen supply?
Mike Kriskeyon 16 Nov 2008 at 9:09 pm 22I thought that’s what this series of posts was about–people are actually being assaulted for supporting Proposition 8. I take that seriously.
Who are you quoting there? Who are you assigning this motive to? Is it possible that there could be another reason for supporting Proposition 8? Or can that not enter your (apparently quite narrow) mind? Do you honestly believe this is all about sex?
On what basis would you deny marriage to polygamists? Or consanguineous adults? A very few years ago, it was deemed ridiculous to believe that homosexuals would ever demand to be married. Marriage was for breeders.
And finally, this is beautiful:
May I direct you to comment #51 on this post?
http://dirtyharrysplace.com/?p=5498
“There are things that speak poorly of a society - this is one of them.” - moviebob
So, how does this work? “Society” is a valid and useful word when moviebob uses it, but when it becomes clear that it might be employed in an argument against his position it becomes “made-up theoretical B.S.”
How dishonest.
MovieBobon 17 Nov 2008 at 6:52 am 23Mike Kriskey
“I thought that’s what this series of posts was about–people are actually being assaulted for supporting Proposition 8.”
Supporting and/or voting for 8 was NOT merely the offering of a dissenting opinion. If it were - if all these people had done was to say publically “we don’t believe you should be married” - I’d be as outraged as most of you that people are being picked on about it. But that isn’t what they did. What they DID was use the mob-mentality brute-force of a voter initiative to FORCIBLY take a legally-granted right away from other citizens. That’s not merely dissent, that’s a tangible action with a real effect. Those effected are now offering a similarly tangible REACTION - “You took something from me, I’m going to to confront you about it, I’m going to cease doing business with you an encourage others to do the same.” Those committing violence are, naturally, going too far.
“Who are you quoting there? Who are you assigning this motive to?”
Let’s start with the folks yelling the loudest, proclaiming themselves the surest and (most importantly) putting up the capital and the manpower to get people riled up and get the thing on the ballot in the first place. By and large, these are/were religious organizations and/or folks with ties to the same, and such organizations are QUITE clear about what the baseline motive for their opposition.
“Or can that not enter your (apparently quite narrow) mind? Do you honestly believe this is all about sex?”
Don’t do much “believing,” friend. Especially not for matters legal… I prefer “thinking” about those
And what I THINK is that everything has a beginning, a foundational seed where all points and nuances about it spring-from and lead back to. I’m sure there are folks who honestly do believe - or have been convinced, or have convinced themselves - that their opposition is about process or judges or whatnot… But when I go looking for the SOURCE, what I tend to find looks an awful lot like a simple “Ew, gross!” followed by “Oh? There’s a handful of lines in the Bible that can be worked to back up my ‘ew gross?’ PHEW! Good, for a minute there I thought I was acting like an immature twelve year-old.” How else is one to justify or even EXPLAIN the shear RAGE of people about something that ultimately has no tangible bearing on them whatsoever?
“On what basis would you deny marriage to polygamists? Or consanguineous adults?”
I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine that #1 is nicely spoken-for by “there’s more than two of you” while #2 wouldn’t much fit with the fact that incest is illegal in this country (and, unlike the sodomy laws, actually taken seriously.)
“Marriage was for breeders.”
Wow. The last of the true romantics, ladies and gentlemen
“So, how does this work? “Society” is a valid and useful word when moviebob uses it, but when it becomes clear that it might be employed in an argument against his position it becomes “made-up theoretical B.S.””
Not much caring for something or doubting it’s validity doesn’t prevent me from recognizing if it’s existing well or not. I don’t much care for Nascar and have some doubts that it ought be regarded as a serious sport, but I can tell when someone knows how to drive a car well.
Mike Kriskeyon 18 Nov 2008 at 10:36 pm 24MovieBob-
If, as you claim, 98% of everything is crap, surely you must agree that your own posts fall under the category of “everything.” No?
Your first paragraph responds to an issue I never raised: boycotts. Good for the homosexuals! Boycott anyone you wish! No one is owed your business. Studio heads didn’t want to do business with communists during the “blacklist era” and I applaud them. They were true Americans. Radical homosexuals don’t want to do business with people who don’t support homosexual marriage? Good for them!
I spoke about (if you’d care to read my comment) people who are being assaulted for disagreeing with the radical homosexual agenda. Maybe you realized that, maybe not, but you spent most of your first paragraph defending extremism before a pro forma denunciation of extremism in your last line. Good for you.
You must mean the homosexual lobby. Unless demonstrations, organized boycotts, organized vandalism of churches, and assaults of those who disagree with you aren’t loud enough.
I arrive at my beliefs through thought, friend. How do you arrive at your? beliefs? (Assuming you have any.)
Wow. You got out a dictionary and looked up “polygamy” and “consanguineous.” Yes, “polygamy” means ‘there’s more than two or you.” Why is that a problem? And yes, incest is illegal. Can you back up your claim that it’s taken more seriously than sodomy laws? I’ve never heard of a case where two adults were arrested for incest. If you have, would you care to cite it?
If you know anything about the radical homosexual lobby, you know that they refer to heterosexuals (with contempt) as “breeders.” You’re not stupid, so I’ll take that as more evidence of your fundamental dishonesty.
A completely incoherent sentence. But it’s better worded than anything I could come up with if I were caught in a total contradiction. Or a lie. I’ll give you that.
Anyone reading this thread will see one thing, Bob. I respond to what you say, and you obfuscate or respond to what you wish I had said.
Let them make of that what they will.
If you want to respond to this comment, I’d welcome it. I would appreciate it if you would actually reply, though.
So I’ll lay a few questions out for you clearly:
I’m interested in how one arrives at beliefs except through thought. Would you care to elaborate on your own thinking process?
Why should adults who prefer to be married to more than one person be denied that right? Why should adults who would prefer to be married to adult siblings (parents, children) be denied that right?
(Between you and me, I’d go all out and call for equal rights for polygamists and incestuous partners. I can’t see any way around it.)
Good luck,
(and with respect)
Mike
Misoon 21 Nov 2008 at 1:19 pm 25Quote: ““In fact, Bob - once your head clears, you will see it’s actually the gays who trying to take OUR rights away.”’
How exactly does me marrying another woman take away rights from you?
Oh I see. It takes away your special right to be a bigot!
Quote”Unless demonstrations, organized boycotts, organized vandalism of churches, and assaults of those who disagree with you aren’t loud enough.”
Saying that all gays are radicals that hate hetrosexauls and vandalize churches is like saying that all christians are radical, bigoted, hate filled, homophobes, like Fred Phelps.
Sorry if I might have misunderstood you, but it seems like your saying that a large amount of homosexauls are hateful people who enjoying beating people up. Their not. Please don’t generalize.
Mike Kriskeyon 21 Nov 2008 at 5:06 pm 26Miso -
I never said all homosexuals are radicals. Also, my use of the phrase “radical homosexual lobby” should tell you that I don’t think that all homosexuals are a part of that group.
It seems that the California consitution is relatively easy to change. Get 50.1% of the votes and it’s done. It shouldn’t be necessary to resort to threats and intimidation (physical and otherwise) to obtain those votes.