![[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i7tmcOiJ4hc/RoJ3zn0O-9I/AAAAAAAAAFw/5Y4WaIwDd6k/s1600/freedomtowernight_edited.jpg)
What's Good for the Goose...
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Glenn Garvin.
Glenn Garvin.
...anybody who stops buying Puffins at Whole Foods over John Mackey's theories on Obamacare has no right to criticize Cuban Americans for burning the singer Juanes' CDs over his affection for Fidel Castro. And if you want Fox News to kick Glenn Beck off the air, you can't complain about Clear Channel doing the same to the Dixie Chicks. That shut-up-and-sing stuff goes both ways.
posted by Robert at 10:38 PM
12 Comments:
Not sure exactly where Garvin finds the evidence to support a claim that Juanes has any affection for Fidel Castro.
In a 2008 article for a Mexican newspaper, Juanes spoke positively about the "beautiful speeches of Che at the UN" or "the lucidity which Fidel Castro could speak with for five hours." I don't know if this is what Garvin was referring to, but the quotes doesn't exactly make Juanes sound good.
http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/espectaculos/81532.html
I'm not sure anyone is saying to kick Glenn Beck off the air....they're just saying that they're not going to advertise on his show because they don't want to be associated with him. He's still on isn't he? People can still listen to him, right?
And saying that you're "ashamed of your President" equals "the President is racist?" Yeah, whatever.
Regarding the Whole Foods analogy...closer. But until mobs of angry shoppers start yelling and screaming and burning Puffins outside of Whole Foods stores, the analogy lacks something.
.
The fact is, both sides complain when the other threatens to or executes a boycott. Both sides deride the other when boycotts are planned and staged. You should know, Rick. You've done it yourself.
That's the central point of Garvin's column, one which is proven time and time again to be true.
Another fact, Robert, is that I think all boycotts are stupid. Whether they be against Whole Foods or the Dixie Chicks or Glenn Beck or The Burlington Coat Factory.
I guess you could say that corporations are "boycotting" his show by pulling their advertising but it seems to me it's more of a simple business decision: they are choosing to not to be associated with the "entertainment" that Beck provides.
.
Let's see....the Beck boycott - because that is what it is Rick, companies didn't decide out of their own mind to shift their Fox inventory out of Beck and into another Fox show (which is all this boycott is doing; Fox isn't really losing money) - was started by a group of people who were offended by what Beck said.
The same thing happened to the Chicks; a group of people took offense to what they said and decided to boycott them. If I remember correctly the left derided those boycotters. Then Letterman said something about Palin's daughter that a group of people found offensive. These people too were derided by the left because they lead a similar boycott as that being led against Beck.
Now the left is leading a boycott against Mackey - who as a person and corporate does a lot more good than harm - because he disagrees with Obama's healthcare options. He doesn't disagree with reform, just with the bill at the time.
Aren't these lefties boycotting Whole Foods and Beck doing the same thing the righties did to Letterman and the Chicks?
You can't measure the magnitude of the offense Rick, just the fact that people found it offensive.
And if Cubans in Miami find it offensive that Juanes is going to La Plaza de la Revolucion to give a concert - that even Rey Ruiz has come forward against the location of the concert - and decide to burn his CDs isn't that their right to do so?
Didn't lefties burn effigies and images of Bush, Palin, et al?
Same thing Rick. Theoretically, same thing. Both sides are the same and behave the same. To deride each other is to be hypocrites.
Sticking with Beck...yeah, in thinking about it, you're right LV, it is a boycott. And perhaps it is a little hypocritical for the left for doing something that it was so against not too long ago. But I do think that the gravity of the offense has to be considered when analyzing the entire situation and not just a portion of it that supports one's opinion.
There is a distinct difference is saying that you're ashamed that the President is from Texas and saying that the President is racist. I think we can agree on that. I believe where we differ is when we simply equivocate the reactions to those statements.
It's like putting ones reaction to vandalism and murder on the same meter because they're both crimes. They are, but the gravity of murder justifies a higher level of outrage than the defacing of a wall.
I'm not sure if I'm being clear here...but the bottom line for me is that any boycott is a waste of time, no matter what side initiates it.
.
I agree with you, Rick, in that there's a difference between being ashamed of someone and calling someone a racist...although I think if you pressed the Dixie Chicks to come up with reasons why they're ashamed of Bush, their answers may come uncomfortably close to being as personal and offensive as accusations of Obama of being racist are. That's just my two cents.
I don't have strong feelings for or against boycotts. I agree that as a matter of principle, boycotts are fine. It all depends on how and for what they're executed.
They are not burning the CDs over his supposed affection for Castro -saying his speeches were lucid, which unfortunately they were or we wouldn't be here- they are burning the CDs over their opposition to a concert. Garvin is intentionally mischaracterizing the issue. It's like saying I want Glenn Garvin off the editorial pages because he looks like the lost brother of the Unabomber, not because of his clueless and unintentionally hilarious rants.
Boycotts are fine from either side. But Clear Channel's was not a boycott. It was a corporate decision by one of the largest media companies, as part of a policy of suppressing criticism of Bush or the war that included rejecting paid advertising, and as such it is reprehensible.
There is a distinct difference is saying that you're ashamed that the President is from Texas and saying that the President is racist.
What if the President really is racist? You're begging the question, i.e., assuming that he is not a racist and that there's something improper about arguing that he is. I think that, on the contrary, it's a debatable proposition.
Let's have the debate: Is Obama a racist? Why or why not?
Nope, he is not. Even if you are personally convinced Obama is a racist --as Beck purports to be and I say purports because even Beck knows he's just rabble-rousing-- Beck is not the ultimate authority on this and he offered no proof. (He said "I think..."). So Rick is only comparing opinions in terms of their capacity to shock an audience, not assuming anything about their veracity.
Here's something to chew on:
I don't think Obama is racist, either. His previous personal and spiritual relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is a racist, is one of the things that throws doubt in some people's minds. The Obama/Wright relationship does illustrate an uncomfortable level of acceptance by Obama of a hateful man, even if he's severed those ties (for political expediency). One thing is for someone like that to be a loose acquaintance. Another is for him to be your spiritual advisor who married you and baptized your children.
Post a Comment
<< Home