1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Steven Spielberg: Hollywood Buffoon

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by drslash, Nov 1, 2002.

  1. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    He's a filmmaker that's his job. Let that be seperate from his political leanings. As far as resigning from the BSA, it is his right. If he no longer agrees with what they are doing, then he has every right to resign. I think the publicity is continuing to tarnish the reputation of the BSa, and that Spielberg may have resigned more so to <i>avoid</i> the politics that is starting to surround the BSA and its actions which could end up tarnishing the reputation of Mr. Spielberg himself.
  2. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    Ok, I'll wait and see. Like I said before, I won't be holding my breath waiting for him to say that it was a big mistake for him to have gone to Cuba. Just for kicks, I'll make a prediction that he says the the 40 plus year trade embargo (imposed on them because Castro confiscated private property and has not made reparations for) is the cause of the plight of the Cuban people. If he renounces Castro and his regime and places the blame for the plight of the people squarely on the communist system, I'll give him the dancing banana!
  3. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    While the intention for this thread was to show once again the hypocricy of the Hollywood left, I'll reserve judgement until I hear some comments from Mr. Spielberg regarding his trip.

    As for the recent publicity affecting the BSA, since the court ruling in 2000 our BSA Council has never had better support financially from the community. Donations are up and the local United Way Chapter will give our BSA Council $186,000 this year.
  4. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I guess I am missing something here. Why are we expecting political statements from Spielburg when he returns? He is going there for their movie industry. If he comes back and makes negative comments I imagine it would have negative effects on the people he visited or who sponsored him. I think waiting to hear negative reports is futile and therefore the purpose of waiting is just to say look at the liberal media weanie.

    If your plan is to quit watching his movies depending on his politics I would surely expect you are checking on the politics of all people in all entertainment you watch. If not, this is surely hypocrisy.

    While I think I am a little liberal in some social issues I find myself siding more and more with conservatives. And yet I still am able to watch entertainment and sport without requiring the people I watch to agree with me. Hell, I do not even require my family agree with me on every issue and yet I still sit and sup with them.

    I find it curious that people demand entertainment figures agree with their politics or I will spite them by not watching the best movies, the best sports teams, or listen to good music. I think the best offense to these people believing they should harangue us with their politics is to go "ho, hum, who the hell are you?"
  5. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    I really don't expect to hear anything from Steven Spielberg except leftist trashing of American policies towards Cuba. I would rather that entertainers not use their high profile to enter the political arena but its a free country. It is a preference I have, maybe I am alone that way but nevertheless, it is the way I am. If I hear something I don't agree with or see blatant hypocrisy, I'm not going to sit on the sidelines of the political arena either. I don't seek out the politics of entertainers; I found both of the articles linked in the first post during my normal course of reading news. I only linked to the People article because I could not find the original article I read. I don't read People magazine. I am so out of touch with popular culture as it is. I go to a movie once in a while, rent a movie now and then but I watch no network primetime programming. For an entertainer to catch my attention about their politics they are taking a high enough profile about it to show up on the radar. Again this is fine, I just am exercising my right to criticize them how I see fit.

    One of the main things I like about sports entertainment is that it is almost totally devoid of politics. I don't want my opinions about a football player to be shaded by his politics, I want my opinions about him based on whether or not he knocks the snot out of his opponent or not. :)

    I don't demand or require an entertainer's politics to agree with mine. My preference is that I would rather not know the politics of entertainers. If someone puts their views out in the public domain and I think they are being hypocritical or being "in your face about it" I'll do the only thing I can do by not patronizing them. I too do not agree with all of the views of my family and friends but I don't find them hypocritical or "in my face". If I did, I would talk to them about it, let them know what I think. I can do that face to face with them. I can't do that with Steven Spielberg.

    I've tried to analyze and figure out why I don't like politics intertwined with entertainment and sports. I think it is that I am so cynical when it comes to regular politicians that I don't want to be cynical about so many others. I dislike the behavior of politicians but have come to expect it. I don't want to dislike others. With politicians you have to, more or less, wade through their views so you can arrive at a point to make informed choices at the polling booth. Too often I find myself looking at my choices on the ballot and holding my nose as I vote. I would rather just leave that stuff in its own dark corner of the closet. I think I know myself well enough that if I were as cynical about everybody else as I am about politicians, I would have no friends and just be a lonely curmudgeon.
  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Color Purple and the life of "colored". Saving Private Ryan. Did ANYone here, outside the vets who saw combat, have a totally different perspective on the D-Day of Normandy?

    It blew me away (no pun intended) as to how graphic, captivating, devastating, and mesmerizing something like that can be. No one, imho, came close in showing something that Spielberg did there.
  7. DSL Dan

    DSL Dan Registered User

    A person's ability to make a movie, sing a song, hit a baseball, etc., does not qualify them for more political insight than anyone else. In fact, I think it is just the opposite. These people live in such a rarified atmosphere that I doubt they have any concept of what are average Americans' priorities. If you think George Bush Sr. looked goofy years ago at that supermarket checkout, try to imagine old Stevie in the same situation.
  8. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    PRECISELY!!!! :thumbsup:

    Which is why his personal experience with BSA has a lot of hold and his political view on Cuba is more or less taken with a grain of salt, or should be. :)
  9. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    I have very little to add to this conversation, except the following:

    Steven Spielberg ran over my foot with his baby carriage when I was stepping out of Sharp's in Manhattan sometime in 1999. He apologized.

    His wife is incredibly hot, much better in real life than in the movies.

    This has nothing to do with his stance on Cuba--much like his stance on the BSA is irrelevant to that same issue.

    End AAR.

  10. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    He turned his personal experience with the BSA in to a public political statement at a public event with news coverage. How hard is that to understand!
  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Easy, actually. His personal experience was sought after, he offered it.

    His political stance on Cuba should not even be sought after.
  12. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    I'll partially agree with you on the second point, IMO he should not even be going to Cuba. Since he is, that in itself ensnares him in a political situation.
  13. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Flame away, but I see nothing to gain from our present boycott of Cuba. I think letting tourists go there, sharing the benefits of our culture would be more likely to get a government change when Castro dies. It's a shame that making a realistic move like lifting the sanctions and boycotts of Cuba would be viewed as soft on communisim, a boogey man that should be laid to rest in this hemisphere. Our country should now be bigger than this.
  14. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I'll partially agree also, he shouldn't be going to Cuba to film anything. Plenty of other places on earth he can do the job.

    I'll also agree with Shiny's post up top.
  15. DSL Dan

    DSL Dan Registered User

    If it makes us feel better, why don't we just declare victory over Castro and unleash U.S. capitalism upon the poor little island? After all, what has he accomplished in nearly a half-century? He certainly has failed to export whatever the hell sort of political unrest he dreamt of way back when.

    We've won, and now all that remains is for McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, and Pizza Hut to drive the final nails in the coffin. The coup de grace will be Havana's first Walmart. ;)
  16. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    Yes, capitalism will allow the island nation to flourish and the people will have a higher standard of living. They might even get their computers back and be allowed to freely communicate through out the world. Check this out:
    Cuba Bans PC Sales to Public (I'd really like to know what Justin's opinion on this is)

    The strangle hold by Castro on speech in Cuba is deplorable. This has much more to do with problems in Cuba than economic problems. What do you value more in this country, your econmic freedom or freedom of speech?

    The embargo was imposed because Castro confiscated private property of many US citizens and businesses. When the property is returned or compensation for the property is given, that will be the right time to remove the trade embargo. Would you rest after 40 years if this government took land from you without compensation?
  17. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    You make the case much simpler that it is. The previous government was a dictatorship that took property from citizens and gave/sold rights to American companies at the expense of the citizens of the country. Did legitimate companies and individuals lose property? Yes. Did many lose property gained through bribes and donations to dictator? Yes. After a period of time trying to determine fair decisions on land is like giving the country back to the Indians since it was theirs, noble idea, but impractical.

    That being said, if the country changes to a democracy the voters decide who gets what. I am not prepared to allow the dictatorship and rule by the wealthiest return, are you? That'w why Castro had such a fertile field to plow.
  18. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    Well said, sir.
    Many folks either do not know, or choose not to know, how this all started.
    Applying what we believe now, to what we believed then, is disingenuous. Or, put another way, why, exactly don't we (USA) have a diplomatic relationship with Cuba today?
    Is the line so defined, in the sand, that we leave no doors open?

    A tough row to hoe, politically.
    Too bad. It's a beautiful Island, populated by a generous people, stuck on the shitty end of the stick.

    When's the last time these 'political leaders' talked, bye the way? Are egos in the way? Surely a resolution could have been reached, after all this time.

    This 'Cuba' situation is a textbook failure in USA Diplomancy, to me. They should have reached some sort of accord years ago.

    Just my opinion.
  19. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    Surprise! Surprise! Steven Spielberg slams the US regarding the trade embargo and I don't see him quoted as saying anything about Cuba's repressive totalitarianism.
  20. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    He is still a movie person. Why listen? But as I said above I agree with him so it would not be honest to slam him now. Did he say good things about the current regime? Not that I heard.

Share This Page