The Baseball Hall of Fame has interjected itself into the political debate over war in Iraq. It had planned a celebration of the 15th anniversary of Bull Durham, one of the best baseball-themed movies of all time. The film starred Kevin Costner and Susan Sarandon. It has canceled the event, said Dale Petroskey, president of the organization, because "Recent comments by the actors 'ultimately could put our troops in even more danger.' " Tim Robbins, Sarandon's partner, fired back: "He said he remained 'skeptical' of the war plans and told Petroskey he did not realize baseball was 'a Republican sport.' " Mr. Petroskey, the story notes, was an assistant press secretary in the Reagan Administration.
Smells like a blacklist to me.
Update: the Hall of Fame has been awarded $750K of federal taxpayer dollars for 2003. That means it's your dollars and mine being used to have this guy espouse his point of view. See Thomas; do a search for "baseball hall of fame." When you get the results, select H.J. Res 2 ENR, then click "Best Sections" on the resulting page. You'll get a section for Museums; click it. Look through the highlighted words on the next page until you see an appropriation for the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
I find this absolutely reprehensible, just as I do Ari Fleischer's implicit threat to Bill Maher a year ago that he should "watch what he says," or Ashcroft's remark in open committee hearings that dissent "aided the terrorists." These people are entitled to hold their own opinions, but if they get a paycheck from me, they damn well shouldn't be pushing said opinions in the formation of public policy.
Posted by Linkmeister at April 10, 2003 01:50 PM*applauds the HOF*
Posted by: Jen at April 10, 2003 03:16 PMJen, are you personalizing this towards Sarandon? Since when is dissent something to be suppressed? It ain't, not in the country I care about.
Posted by: Linkmeister at April 10, 2003 03:23 PMThe HOF isn't a state agency, and isn't 'suppressing' anyone, kid. Am I personalizing toward Sarandon? No. I do dislike her political proselytizying, but then, I feel the same way about most of the political wannabees in Hollywood.
Posted by: Jen at April 10, 2003 05:00 PMAnd I dislike the proselytizing of Fred Barnes and William Kristol, but I wouldn't cancel a non-political event they were supposed to attend because I didn't like their points of view. As I said in Faith's comments, quoting Robbins from the AP story, he didn't plan to talk politics there anyway.
Posted by: Linkmeister at April 10, 2003 05:06 PM"quoting Robbins from the AP story, he didn't plan to talk politics there anyway"
You're so trusting, Linky. It's why we find you endearing. ;)
Posted by: Jen at April 10, 2003 06:29 PMWhy would I doubt his word? He's not a politician asking for my vote.
And I do call the HOF's action suppression, if only because of the potential chilling effect it could have on others.
Posted by: Linkmeister at April 10, 2003 08:48 PMI'm not a big baseball fan but Bull Durham was an excellent movie.
Posted by: ali at April 11, 2003 12:04 AMIt is total McCarthyism, and it makes me SICK. *stewing* :o/
Posted by: JeanNINE at April 11, 2003 11:27 AMTim and Susan are great actors..
They shouldn't be blacklisted, that can start a whole new "ballgame"....
I find it interesting that liberal types jump all over the Hall of Fame. Yet, no one criticizes the United Way of Tampa Bay for canceling a $200 a plate dinner that featured Susan Sarandon.
Why was it canceled? Complaints about her anti-war position.
Posted by: Dave at April 15, 2003 07:12 AMLet's try and put this in an intelligent perspective, shall we? I know it annoys liberals to be bothered by facts, but humor me for a moment while I straighten out some misrepresentations and half-truths in the initial post here.
Firstly, Petroskey is in an elected position as the HOF president. The action that he took was not his alone, nor was it solely representative of his political viewpoint. The action was taken following a consensus amongst the leadership of the HOF as a whole, which was predicated by numerous complaints and comments received by the HOF organization against a celebration that would, by extention, honor Sarandon and Robbins. And, the organization of baseball as a whole has been supportive of his decision, executives and players alike. I'm afraid that Petroskey was not just another cog in the good-old-boy machine, with his hand out and his opinion for sale.
Why is it that whenever liberals bash the conservative viewpoint, they have to try to discredit conservatives entirely by making it sound as though all conservatives have simply sold their souls - rather than admitting that perhaps we came to our decisions through thought, and what we believe is RIGHT - just as you should have. It's the tenor of this discussion regarding Petroskey, as well as Robbins' letter to Petroskey - "let's skip the issues, and just debate whether or not you're a political pawn." Is it because you don't really WANT to focus on the facts and issues, and it's easier to just wave your hand and dismiss our position this way?
Secondly: Blacklist? Oh, puh-leeze. Anyone using that word is obviously very poorly educated on the reality of blacklisting during the middle third of the last century. The FBI and the CIA are not snooping into the private business and lives of stars, attempting to find evidence of leftist affiliations. Sarandon and Robbins (and several others like them) have blatantly abused their celebrity to espouse their political beliefs in a very vocal, very public manner.
It absolutely cracks me up, the "have my cake and eat it too" mentality of these Hollywood people. They want to be able to use their public personas to spread their viewpoints as widely as they possibly can ... but when the audience ends up disagreeing, and takes actions in response that are equally as public and decisive, the celebs run like scalded cats, squealing all the way about not having their right to free speech. Blah blah blah.
The Constitution guarantees you the right to hold and disseminate your opinions. It does not guarantee that the people you're disseminating to are going to like it, agree, or not take their own equal and opposite actions in response. Sarandon is not in jail. She is not under government investigation. She has not been "silenced" in any way that is in opposition to the Bill of Rights. Some citizens of this country - who have EVERY BIT as much right to their opinions as she does - have simply stood up and said that they are not willing to provide her with more public platforms from which to espouse her Anti-American agenda.
As far as the taxpayer dollars go - I'm afraid you were just a TAD BIT misleading on that score too, weren't you? This is the exact text from the government document you instructed people to search for and review, pertaining to the HOF:
"$750,000 shall be awarded to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Cooperstown, New York, for educational outreach using baseball to teach students through distance learning technology."
That money was not paid to finance political campaigns, to pay for special events such as the one that was cancelled, and it certainly was not appropriated for paying the salary of the organization president. It was earmarked to fund an educational program. Period.
I'm sure that the HOF receives government funding for other purposes as well, but they are funded primarily by private and corporate donations, and contributions from the National and American leagues, NOT through government handouts. The way that you stated this was incomplete and intentionally misleading to the reader, unless they actually went and reviewed it for themselves.
Finally, with regard to the issue of your righteous fury at these people who are getting a "paycheck" from you (let's say for a moment, just for giggles, that we the people are directly putting a hefty paycheck into Petroskey's hands every two weeks): it's absolutely ludicrous and naive to expect that your tax dollars will be used only to fund the most impartial/bipartisan, and neutral of causes. Are your positions really this poorly thought out?
No, really, consider this rationally for a moment. As a conservative, I don't care for the fact that one red cent of our national budget pays the salary of Secret Service agents who are forced to guard the Clintons, as they jet around the world (also often on tax dollars), using their past and present political affiliations to line their own already overflowing pockets. I absolutely hate it that government dollars are paying for abortions and useless, unhelpful welfare programs.
Unfortunately, in a democracy/republic, you gotta live with a lot of stuff you don't agree with - because if you start trying to change things to where nothing that YOU don't agree with will be funded with your tax dollars, then what are you going to have to say when someone else decides that it's time to cut a program that you DO support - because they think it's wrong?
In other words - why is it OKAY for the HOF to have an event celebrating two rabid Anti-Americans (at a time when their viewpoints are in the forefront and the issues are the hottest current topics) on the public's buck, regardless of how it will be negatively perceived by those who oppose them and their viewpoints...but it's NOT okay for the same event to be cancelled because it will be negatively perceived by those who DO support them and their actions? Is there not just a tad bit of hypocrisy in that?
Let's say the event had proceeded as scheduled, and Robbins/Sarandon had used it as one more opportunity to speak out against the President, the war and our troops. I wonder just how many of the liberals who are oh-so scandalized at the "politicalizing" of the HOF, would have bothered to open their mouths and speak out against its being used in such a manner by someone with whose opinions they agreed? I'd bet you a lot that I could count the number on both hands and still have ten fingers left over.
Posted by: Kate at April 18, 2003 11:57 AM