[Previous entry: "There's nothing we can't face..."] [Next entry: "hobo camel has left the building..."]

This is going to be longer than I thought. Click on the read more to get the whole thing. Overall Theme: Capitalism and Context.

Jeffrey Wells writes a movie opinion column called Hollywood Elsewhere over at Kevin Smith's news site, Moviepoopshoot.com. It's a damn good column, even if you don't share Well's film aesthetic. I agree with him maybe 50% of the time about movies.

He also runs some political stuff every now and then, which is cool - it is his column. I don't usually share his opinions in that regard, but he does publish reader responses, so he balances his stuff with opposing views okay. Today I almost choked after reading a letter from one of his readers.

Some background: The topic of discussion was the whole Linda Rondstadt/Michael Moore Vegas incident.

To quickly summarize, during her show at the Alladin Casino in Vegas, she dedicated a song to Michael Moore for being a patriot and urged people to see Farenheit 9/11, and a good part of the crowd started booing and apparently many people left and starting ripping down Rondstadt posters across the casino and throwing cocktails. The management saw this and asked Ms. Rondstadt to leave the premises after the show - she was only scheduled for one performance.

Before I get into this, I'm going to say that, in my opinion, the boos are acceptable if somewhat callous behavior, the vandalism is NOT acceptable behavior, and the appropriate response if you didn't like that sort of thing at a Linda Rondstadt show is to walk out and perhaps complain to the management. And what the fuck were you doing at a Linda Rondstadt show anyway? Get some taste.

But that's not the point of this. Back to Wells. In a sidebar on his page, he wrote this:

"This is way off-topic, obviously, and four days late, but that Alladin Casino president who booted Linda Ronstadt after she told a concert audience last weekend that Michael Moore is a "great patriot [who's] trying to get the truth out"...well, he sounds like a real storm-trooper. And the folks who allegedly booed, tossed cocktails and defaced posters of Ronstadt sound like real sweethearts too. Moore has some choice words about this incident and that Alladin asshole at www.michaelmoore.com. What's at the root of this propensity among flag-waving rightie conservatives to tell people they don't agree with to shut up and go away? If I were at a country music concert in Branson and one of the stars told the audience that now is the time to stand up against people like Michael Moore and to defend our God- loving President, etc., I wouldn't boo, throw a drink or deface anything. Americans have the right to say any asinine thing they want to say."

Two right-leaning readers wrote in. Basically saying:

A) Rondstadt has the right to say what she wants, and the casino owner has the right to ask her to leave - it's his place.

B) Shouting down people for expressing their minds is not a new or right-wing phenomenon. It happens all the time at college campuses, with groups on both sides of many issues, such as abortion, affirmative action, etc.

Then another reader responded to those two. This is the response that made me what to reach through the internet, grab this mule by the tail, and send him back to first grade so he can start the development process all over again.

"Both of your right-wing readers proved what's so damn wrong with them all:

Bryan Farris says the Aladdin owner should be able to express his opinion. He did express his opinion but only after suppressing Linda Rondstat's right to free speech. He could have simply said afterward, I disagree with her politics. And the right-wingers in the audience could have (as you say shrugged it off) and say they disagree. And J.P. Weiske says people should protest instead by boycotting the artist who exercises free speech. This is simply another way of punishing someone for exercising their damn rights! If you disagree say you disagree. Boycotting and kicking them out of stadiums for speaking their minds is just another form of facism, not the absence of it."

Out of respect for the atrociously stupid, I'll leave his name off the quote. The whole interaction is up at the website anyway. I'll just call him jack monkey.

Two things about this drive me fucking insane. First, the owner didn't even say that he agreed or disagreed with Linda Ronstadt's statement. In everything I can find about the matter, his opinion has not been mentioned. If someone can find it, toss it in the comments. The owner saw a situation where his performer had angered many of his guests. The guests were much more important to his business than Linda Rondstadt. As a good businessman (and good capitalist), he made a decision that would help to placate his customers. It probably wasn't even about politics to him, it was about business sense.

Second, this non-thinking, non-knowing, non-reading, half-illiterate jack monkey says that boycotting and protesting are "another form of fascism, not the absence of it." He says it's "punishing someone for exercising their damn rights."

This guy doesn't have a fucking clue what fascism is.

Quick side trip to facism land. When I was in college, I got into many arguments about politics. Yeah, I know - shocker. At the time, my current libertarian ideals had not fully formed and I still considered myself a Republican. I was arguing with some friends of mine about something or other, and one of them kept dropping the f-word as a descriptor for my politics. After about the 4th time, I got furious. So I said to her, "What is fascism? What does the word mean and how does it apply in the statement you just made?" I can't seem to find an ironic simile for how fast she shut up. It was fast, alright?

Cause she didn't know. Of course she didn't know. She was just spouting some bullshit she had read somewhere that said Republicans are basically fascists.

Dictionary.com's definition of fascism:

1. a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Sorry, but if you really want to get into it, both sides have elements of fascism in their core beliefs, but since neither side advocates dicatatorial control or terror as suppression of opposition, it's all bullshit. Fascism is not alive and well in America, everybody. Really, it's not. I bet there are some old Italian dudes out there who lived through some real fascism and would take serious offense to jackoff kids throwing the word around like it's a play toy. It certainly doesn't further any open and honest discourse about the issues facing our country.

Back to jack monkey: Fascism is a government thing. If our Government had passed laws banning Linda Rondstadt from playing at Vegas Casinos (and really, is this a bad idea?) or banning people from buy her CDs, that would be fascism. An individual choosing not to host her at his casino, or another individual deciding not to buy her CD? That's capitalism. It's exercising free speech, not punishing someone else for doing the same. You don't think people should do that - fine. You don't have to do it. But for many people, it's a very legitimate form of free expression. If someone publicizes a view that you don't like, why would you still be obligated to support them financially? Why on earth would someone think it's fascism to stop giving money to someone who espouses different views? Of course they are allowed to exercise their right to free speech. Of course they are. But if I'm required to support them financially so they can do that, that's oppression.

It's a capitalist country (sort of). I have friends who don't like that. I have friends who think Socialism is a better option. Fair enough. But as long as it still is a capitalist country, the rules of capitalism apply. And capitalism IS NOT FASCISM. Seriously people, this is not rocket science. Both sides enjoy the same freedom, and that includes the freedom to not like what other people say. You can't force people to be quiet, but you sure as hell don't have to provide a forum for them if you don't want to in your own private establishment.

On the other hand, vandilism as response to a desagreeable idea is a bunch of crap. Use those 4 million security cameras at that casino, find the people who did it, and toss 'em in the clink.

Enough of that. jack monkey is a mindless fool and if you can't see that, read a book on logic.

Which brings me to a fascinating point, which has kinda gotten overlooked in all this. It's a topic that includes the Dixie Chicks brouhaha, the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident, and the FCC crackdown. And the topic is context.

Jeff Wells started down this road in his sidebar, but didn't quite get to the end. Here's the relevant part again:

"If I were at a country music concert in Branson and one of the stars told the audience that now is the time to stand up against people like Michael Moore and to defend our God- loving President, etc., I wouldn't boo, throw a drink or deface anything. Americans have the right to say any asinine thing they want to say."

Of course they do. But you don't have to listen. But here's the thing: Wells is basically saying that if he were at a country music concert in Branson, he wouldn't be surprised if some pro-Bush words were thrown around.

Why not? Well, country music appeals to a certain type of listener. And that type of listener is probably more inclined to like Bush then Kerry. Or Michael Moore.

Alternatively, I wasn't the least bit surprised when I went to that Fugazi show a couple years back and listened to those guys jump all over Bush. That's the image they project.

The reason that people had a hissy fit when The Dixie Chicks spoke out against Bush: their core audience likes Bush. They didn't expect an attack on Bush from a country group.

Did the Dixie Chicks have the right to say what they did? Of course. That's the beauty of free speech. But their entire career is built around a certain context, and then they did something that was outside of that context. So of course people were going to be upset. Honestly, they should have expected the backlash and if they didn't see it coming, they're a little slow on the uptake. Doesn't mean they shouldn't do it, just means that what happened afterward was bound to happen. Or in simpler terms (for my man, jack monkey): Duh.

Same thing with the Super Bowl. It's very simple. Some people in this country have a problem with their young children looking at exposed boobies. And like it or not, they have a right to feel that way. So when Janet does her little thing (and it was NOT an accident - the nipple shield should be proof enough of that) at halftime on a major broadcast network with a huge audience, including many children, she breaks the contextual boundary. People had a pretty reasonable expectation not to see naked breasts during that broadcast. So when Janet puts it all out there, the people who had that expectation are naturally going to be upset. These same people would not be upset if Janet had shown up on Skinemax. It's the context of that activity that counts.

And we're back to Linda Rondstadt. Her biggest hit was 32 years ago. Most of her fans ar pushing 50 at least. Linda Rondstadt does not have a reputation as a huge outspoken liberal. She has a reputation as an aging pop singer. These older people who go to see her aren't expecting a political outburst. It's not in the context. They just want a nice dose of "You're No Good" and "Somewhere Out There" to chase their Xanax at a Vegas Lounge show. The context is broken, the trouble begins.

There should be a forum for people to speak lovingly about Michael Moore. There should be a place for Linda Ronstadt to be heard. But the context has to be there. People always talk about Howard Stern by saying "If you don't like it, change the station." I agree wholeheartedly. But you have to know that you are on Howard's station to begin with.

Context.