I will spend my $$ elsewhere than with these celebs

In view of my rantings & beliefs expressed in 3417 I will spend my entertainment dollars elsewhere besides anything related to the following people:

Neil Young
Dixie Chicks
Barbara Streisand
George Clooney
Michael J. Fox
Alec Baldwin
Whoopie Goldberg
Leonardo DiCaprio - global warming panic super-advocate & Algore clone.

They should stick to music or acting instead of politics. Their celebrity is NOT for their politics but for their entertainment talents. This list will grow !

This is NOT a boycott! It is simply about spending my scarce $$ allocated for entertainment with those people whom I wish to prosper & continue their art. Those in the list above do not meet this criteria.

Follow the link to the Dixie Chicks & find their latest Bush Bash movie advertizement. What these people do NOT understand is they have all the free speech they can generate. They do not have the right to be HEARD!
The Drudge Report link may change someday to a different story - get it now.

Comments

Mark de LA says
Alec Baldwin is definitely on my "other than" list - a list of those I will find alternative spending equivalences. And now Mel Gibson is pushing the envelope with his comments. Although he is a skilled actor & director, he appears to me now more skilled at turning violence into a screen phenomenon attracting viewers. His Passion of the Christ was more ugly than an epiphany. On the other hand Braveheart was a masterpiece. IMHO he is getting nutty - Mayan sacrifices ? what next? Auswitz? Hiroshima? Saddam's Rape rooms ? I defend to the death the right of these artists, singers, actors & directors to express themselves. It doesn't however mean that I should invest my financial resources to support their causes.

Mark de LA says
I hope that some others begin to make movies that show all perspectives about wars & the other world problems; not just the left. In particular I would like to see some with a way out of Hell (See the movie Ghandi for reference). I saw the Celestine Prophecy Movie the other day (old & yet interesting) - a small ray of hope maybe.

Seth says
Syriana was an excellant movie, perhaps the best one to come out on Video this year. One thing that i especially liked about it was it's almost total lack of Hollywood cliches. As a piece of fiction it an important work. For emotional impact, suspense, plot, and character development i would recommend it to anyone, regardless on your political persuasion. To use your selective spending on it is not to understand the movie nor to understand what i said about it in 4021. This is not another hack job or another Inconvient Truth type of movie.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-07-27 10:39:55 3468

Syriana was an excellant movie, perhaps the best one to come out on Video this year. One thing that i especially liked about it was it's almost total lack of Hollywood cliches. As a piece of fiction it an important work. For emotional impact, suspense, plot, and character development i would recommend it to anyone, regardless on your political persuasion. To use your selective spending on it is not to understand the movie nor to understand what i said about it in 4021. This is not another hack job or another Inconvient Truth type of movie.

Yep, It was hard to put this one on my list. I know from whence Clooney comes, though. I do like movies about the Middle East. Selective spending still is not a boycott. What it says in all it's simplicity is that whatever pool of money I have for movies will be spent on other movies. This is my act alone - not a call to anyone else. You should do the same, spending on movies that align with what you want to flourish & thrive (perspective, actors, writers, producers etc.).

Mark de LA says
I am adding to my selective-spending spending list vacations not in Aruba & not in any place that the country of Holland

(the Dutch

) benefit from. I would not feel safe a country run the way Aruba

is run. See the Natalee Holloway story.

Mark de LA says
Selectively spend somewhere else besides CITCO which is owned by the Venexualan asshole Chavez.
uri http://godgunsglory.com/2006/01/30/boycott-citco-and-chavez/

Mark de LA says

Follow the above links on the Michael J. Fox controversy. He participates in a blatant political advertizement against the Republicans that contained lies. Proclaiming or implying that if Democrats get in office that stem cell research will find a cure for Parkinson's Disease is a lie! No fetal stem cell research, government sponsored or otherwise, currently know shows any evidence of hope. In fact, some causes cancer. MJF is representing himself as a sufferer of the disease trying to give false hope to sufferers in order to get Democrats elected. That is cruel. He was much funnier as a comic actor in a sitcom (Republican in the script) than as a politician. I watched him on Boston public - very little symptoms. I didn't see him in the Couric interview - wonder how he looked.

Adult stem cell research shows some actual promise. Pro-life Republicans only object to the fruits of abortion.

This controversy has nothing at all to do with Seth's frequently used attempted n-word slanderous term neocon , except in his mind.

Seth says
Well, sorry mark, were i to persue this issure i would need at least to see Michael's entire ad and not get my only impressions from Rush Limbaugh; but there is nothing in your rhetoric above which convinces me that would not just be a waste of my time.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-10-27 16:41:23 3468

Well, sorry mark, were i to persue this issure i would need at least to see Michael's entire ad and not get my only impressions from Rush Limbaugh; but there is nothing in your rhetoric above which convinces me that would not just be a waste of my time.

There is nothing for you to do here. There was nothing for you to do here. I don't need your agreement at all. If you want to remain ignorant that's OK. I will continue to spend my own money the way that I think benefits all & the things that I consider best. Your oppositional comments here are actually off-topic.

Seth says

source: Michael J. Fox Fires Back at Critics: Actor Tells ABC News That Parkinson's Community Was Hurt by Limbaugh's Comments

... i believe that Limbaugh has already apologized for saying that Fox exaggerated his symptoms. I believe that scientist have said that embryonic stem cell research shows the most promise. I don't know where you got that "MJF is representing himself as a sufferer of the disease trying to give false hope to sufferers in order to get Democrats elected"; but it appears to me to be untrue ... listen to what Michael says about that particular accusation. I think there is quite enough indications contradicting you position on Michael. If your selective spending list is to have any merit i believe you should at least be able to justify why you put someone on the list beyond just that some TV commentator did a hack job on him.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-10-29 13:58:06 3468

source: Michael J. Fox Fires Back at Critics: Actor Tells ABC News That Parkinson's Community Was Hurt by Limbaugh's Comments

Adult stem cell research shows promise see this peer reviewed list here. Rush summarized it here. Unfortunately MJF collapsed adult with embryonic. You have addressed none of my references nor concerns. My list doesn't need you to validate it. If you refuse to read my references in the first place you are showing your biasses making your own merit worthy of this.

Seth says
Can you boil your point down to one proposition which can be said is true or not?

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-10-29 14:46:31 3468

Can you boil your point down to one proposition which can be said is true or not?

This is a summary from this source:

source: ...
MICHAEL J. FOX is making a splash on television sets across Missouri, appearing in a stem cell commercial attacking Senator Jim Talent during Game 1 of the World Series. According to Fox, "Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope." Of course Senator Talent has been a consistent supporter of increased funding for stem cell research that doesn't involve the destruction of human embryos and has only sought to criminalize human cloning, but one needn't let the facts get in the way. (And it is worth mention that Missouri has a bill on the State ballot that would allow the cloning of human beings and then require their destruction prior to gestation.)

... Basically, MJF has collapsed adult & embryonic stem cell research into one statement & lied about Democrat opponents views to further Democrat election goals. There are more examples in the article & in Rush Limbaugh's pile.
(As an aside, I doubt some of MJM's veracity as to his symptoms since I have seem him on TV without much at all of them when he appeared on the series Boston Public. He must have gotten worse since that appearance, a year ago, to show up on Katy Couric's show & in the commercial as he did.) MJM is lying about the prospects & hope for embryonic stem cell research. His own foundation is aware of adult stem cell prospects. There is nothing illegal now about adult stem cell research. There are ethics concerns about cloning humans just because of the possible Frankenstein effect!

Mark de LA says
MJF never read the cloning ammendment text.

Seth says
Well there is nothing wrong with a celebrity making an impassioned endorsement of a candidate for a cause in which he truly believes. I see no reason to fault Michael for that. Don't you agree? As far as i can tell your complaint with his ad focus on two allegations:

It is a lie that "Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research, Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope." In other words "Senator Jim Talent actually supports expanding stem cell research" and he did not support criminalization of that science. We need to cut through some of the confusion in the wording. If it can be established that Talent actually supports adult stem cell research and if that research path can be demonstrated to be just as promising as embryonic research and would not cause any unnecessary delays, then Fox's assertion is not true. If that cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, then Fox's statement is at leas partially true.
Mr Fox faked his symptoms. Before you make that allegation i think that you should at least listen to this interview and then, if you still think such an allegation is justified, make the allegation informed by Fox's actual condition. I think i heard CNN reporting that Limbaugh has already apologized for that innuendo. If this allegation is so patiently untrue, then shouldn't we stop repeating it?

Was there anything in there that we can actually determine that i missed?

For the record, i will state where i am coming from. When i heard that Bush vetoed the embryonic stem cell research bill because it supported use of cells which were scheduled for disposal, i though that was the most outrageous interference in science for the purpose of pandering to a political base as i have ever seen. If Talent also voted against that bill, then i hail Michael J Fox's calling it to the attention of his constituency in a impassioned manner that drives the point home.

Mark de LA says
Basically, Seth, you have ignored the references I have already given you in favor of raising more questions. This is fruitless. Fox said he didn't fake his symptoms. Even Rush acknowledged that he said that. OTOH, he is an actor & it is rather strange that he didn't wait to film when his symptoms were less exaggerated. A year ago they were not exaggerated at all for a sit-com he was on. No problem on his making ads. It is the misrepresentations I object to; the cloning stuff that he didn't read; the embryonic stem cell research not having any substantiation yet (not a hope); even embryonic stem cells research can be done by privately supported research. There are no laws against adult stem cell research. He is someone who is grasping at straws for a cure so it is prolly understandable. You are just in the RWG & not reading what I have already posted. I will consider any further stuff on this node on this subject off topic. If you are interested in this subject make your node fresh somewhere else. Ethically the jury is still out on cloning. Ethically the jury is still out on using & killing embryos for research. In the end, MJF is just another Democrat in a panic over the November election who will say anything he can to try to get Democrats elected!

Mark de LA says

Re: the Dixie Chicks & their grammies

Mark de LA says

Apparently Angelina Jolie is another candidate for selective spending (elsewhere). Was there a non-political reason to ban FOXNEWS from her premiere? The interview contracts seem incongruent with "Reporters without Borders" theme. From their website:

45	8	125	6	66
Journalists killed	Media assistants killed	Journalists imprisoned	Media assistants imprisoned	Cyberdissidents imprisoned

Seth says

M 2007-06-14 06:22:24 3468

Apparently Angelina Jolie is another candidate for selective spending (elsewhere).

Here is her side of the story.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-06-15 12:13:03 3468

M 2007-06-14 06:22:24 3468

Apparently Angelina Jolie is another candidate for selective spending (elsewhere).

Here is her side of the story.

Then there is the FoxNews side of the story.

source: ...

Jolie

Mark de LA says

Having profited greatly for years from their celebrity, Brad & Angelina have gone on a warpath recently against the paparazzi for the consequences of the fame. I have a lot of sympathy for them, but choices have consequences. Now their incongruity is showing with her latest picture being about a reporter with integrity.

Mark de LA says

Here is an update with the story on Angelina Jolie from TMZ - it includes the document. I will believe her more if she fires her lawyers!

Mark de LA says

Phony baloney Madonna - green = money not ecology to her. I really don't have to put her on my list since I don't buy anything from her entertainment company anyway.

Mark de LA says

Here are some celebrities who deserve to be selectively spent out of evolution. The link is in the form of an awards show by terrorists (August 2007). My top vote is below:

<= Sean Penn

The others are:

* Barbara Streisand

* Alec Baldwin

* Michael Moore

* Martin Sheen

* Susan Sarandon

* Charlie Sheen

* Tim Robbins

* Harry Belafonte

Seth says

So if the clerk in the grocery store said something that you disagreed with politically would you not buy from them? Extend you thinking to its logical conclusion. Why consider a celebrities opinion any more important to you than the clerk at the corner? Why politically polarize your personal dealings? Me thinks you go in the wrong direction here.

Mark de LA says

seth 2008-12-15 09:44:58 3468

If the owner of the grocery store got up and railed against this country he would no longer have my business. Why do celebrities have a megaphone for their opinions brought to us by the M$M? It's exactly the point that their opinions don't mean shit! You don't understand selective spending one bit if you don't recognize that your $$ are a vote for the continuation of the way businesses do business. I don't particularly patronize the M$M megaphones either where they are consistently anti-American. Where I have a choice of a better business, I spend my money there. It's not a boycott.

BTW, if the clerk continually mixed politics with his duties as a clerk, I might mention such to the owner.

Seth says

M 2008-12-15 10:50:40 3468

seth 2008-12-15 09:44:58 3468

BTW, if the clerk continually mixed politics with his duties as a clerk, I might mention such to the owner.

Well i still don't think it's a good idea. Think of where it goes, should it be anything more than just you pissing in the wind. Suppose that celebrities became afraid to speak their conscience for fear that their sales would decrease. Suppose that anyone who criticizes the good old USA - and Mark it does need to be criticized - would come under some kind of consumer boycott. That would be a defacto degradation of free speech. But hey, do with your money what you wish, that is certainly your right.

Mark de LA says

seth 2008-12-15 12:37:18 3468

M 2008-12-15 10:50:40 3468

seth 2008-12-15 09:44:58 3468

BTW, if the clerk continually mixed politics with his duties as a clerk, I might mention such to the owner.

Please re-read CFR's original distinction in 2201 to get the principle. It's not a boycott. It does not limit free speech. At least IMHO you should be as conscious of your spending as you are of your voting. Celebrities who mix politics with their professions should suffer the consequences both pro & con.

Seth says

M 2008-12-15 12:55:22 3468

seth 2008-12-15 12:37:18 3468

M 2008-12-15 10:50:40 3468

seth 2008-12-15 09:44:58 3468

BTW, if the clerk continually mixed politics with his duties as a clerk, I might mention such to the owner.

It doesn't matter whether you call it a "boycott" or not - were it to be effective, then it would limit free speech because people would need to consider the consequences of their speech before they spoke their conscience. People should be tolerant of the views of others - whether they agree with them or not. You are proposing an intolerant partisan group think politically correct kind of world - not something that i want to join. The only good news is that this item is just pissing in the wind.

Mark de LA says

Sorry Dude - you have your head up your ass! If, as I suspect, you did not read the principle as I suggested then you haven't the criteria to evaluate it. I am not calling for a boycott, I am telling the world what I am doing. You are welcome to do the opposite or not; your head remaining in your ass notwithstanding! Boycotters in the style of Obama & community organizers do sit ins & civil protest until they get their way or it becomes impossible for the business to carry on. Quite a difference. Boycotting is more mob rule than adjusting one's personal conduct according to a principle - a novel idea for a liberal or a progressive to wrap their head around!

Seth says

M 2008-12-15 14:02:31 3468

Your insults notwithstanding - advertising your imposition of economic consequences on people based upon their speaking their opinions, which were not related to the services you purchased from them, is to advertise your own intolerance. That is not what we need more of in the world today. You confuse this with boycotting but it has nothing to do with that - and if it does, then please make your point inline and not in reference. My point is that there is no place for intolerance of spoken opinion. That is why this item is not a good idea. Do with your money what you want - but, when you advertise your intentions against these people, you are encouraging others to do the same. And at the same time you are encouraging others to be intolerant of these peoples ideas. Freedom of speech is just that - freedom from consequences of that speech - we have it to encourage discourse. What you are doing is ignoring the ethic that tolerance is better than intolerance.

Seth says

source: Note that this is CFR's principal on Selective Spending
Money in the industrial or business State is equivalent to what the Vote is in the political state. The little child with it's single penny possesses one vote, that is to say, it can vote to say whether or not any given person shall remain in business, it can say whether or not any given article shall be manufactured & distributed, it can say whether or not it thinks that any given merchant's method of doing business is correct, humane & profitable, it can say whether the manufacturer is efficient and so forth & so on. Every penny is one vote which can build or destroy any given or selected house of business or mercantile corporation. This is the true purpose and function of MONEY & when Money is used for its true purpose poverty disappears, from the business world, & prosperity returns & these returns are INCREASING, not diminishing as some vain professors imagine. " - C.F.R. February 26, 1936.

... to which i subscribe. Note that is deals how the merchant does business - not with what he says in public about issues unrelated to the conduct of his business. The only effect of your actions will be to make a more intolerant world - not to improve services and commodities as was CFR's.

Seth says

M 2008-12-16 11:03:17 3468

seth 2008-12-16 10:36:58 3468

Look mark, i have no problem with you putting your money "where it is congruent with your being & your highest human aspirations". That sounds very high minded. But i find nothing "high minded" about what is going on here. To me that site just reflects the partisan attitudes that one would expect from a skin head. Look at their advertisements. This is just straight forward intolerance.

Now can you tell me just what specifically is your problem with Sean Penn?

The link was for humor & amusement. It was actually why I posted on this item; I didn't have a better place for it. IMHO, Sean Penn has been an asshole for a very long time, perhaps beginning at birth. He's an OK actor though who usually plays assholes.

ok so you have no substantive criticism of Sean Penn except that he is an asshole and plays assholes. Now it's really hard for me to take this item seriously. Thanks for clarifying. Btw, that he plays assholes convincingly does make him an excellent actor. I'm looking forward to his Harvey Milk.

Mark de LA says

seth 2008-12-16 10:36:58 3468

Seth says

Here's one for my list ...

source: appearing on foxnews
Karl Rove, who refused to answer questions for years on the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA official, criticized Barack Obama on Monday for not being more forthcoming in the Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) scandal.

... now that's the height of hypocrisy.

so to align my dollars with my spirit, i will no longer purchase any products advertised on foxnews.

LOL, am i doing this right?

Mark de LA says

seth 2008-12-16 11:59:03 3468

Here's one for my list ...

... now that's the height of hypocrisy.

so to align my dollars with my spirit, i will no longer purchase any products advertised on foxnews.

LOL, am i doing this right?

Nope! Karl Rove doesn't produce any product that I know of (maybe bloviating). OTOH, the same also applies to Obama who is still is not answering questions either about the Blogo affair. It is interesting that even though he hasn't yet taken office he is in the middle of scandals already, with Blogo & Rohm Emmanual chief of staff & Richardson .

Mark de LA says

I could remove Seth's comments from this item & then this item would return to seriousness which gives some people ulcers!

I will spend my $$ elsewhere than with these celebs

Tags

Comments

See Also